Update on the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: What the Pathologist Needs to Know

Evidence Supporting Diagnostic Value of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for CT- and MR Imaging-based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Based on the Liver Imaging Data and Reporting System (LI-RADS) guidelines, Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) can be diagnosed using imaging criteria in patients at risk of HCC.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic value of LI-RADS in high-risk patients with HCC.

Material and Methods

This systematic review is conducted on international databases, including Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, PROQUEST, and Cochrane Library, with appropriate keywords. Using the binomial distribution formula, the variance of each study was calculated, and all the data were analyzed using STATA version 16. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were determined using a random-effects meta-analysis approach. Also, we used the chi-squared test and I2 index to calculate heterogeneity among studies, and Funnel plots and Egger tests were used for evaluating publication bias.

Results

The pooled sensitivity was estimated at 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84). According to different types of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (LI-RADS), the highest pooled sensitivity was in version 2018 (0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87) (I2: 80.6%, P of chi 2 test for heterogeneity <0.001 and T2: 0.001). The pooled specificity was estimated as 0.89 (95% CI 0.87-0.92). According to different types of LI-RADS, the highest pooled specificity was in version 2014 (93.0 (95% CI 89.0-96.0) (I2: 81.7%, P of chi 2 test for heterogeneity <0.001 and T2: 0.001).

Conclusion

LI-RADS can assist radiologists in achieving the required sensitivity and specificity in high-risk patients suspected to have HCC. Therefore, this strategy can serve as an appropriate tool for identifying HCC.

An assessment of liver lesions using a combination of CEUS LI-RADS and AFP

PURPOSE

To improve noninvasive diagnosis of HCC using a combination of CE US LI-RADS and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP).

METHODS

757 solitary liver nodules from 757 patients at risk of HCC with CE US and serum AFP test were categorized as LR-1 to LR-5 through LR-M according to CE US LI-RADS version 2017. In LR-3, LR-4, and LR-M nodules, those with AFP > 200 ng/ml were reclassified as mLR-5. Nodules with LR-5 and mLR-5 were reclassified as definitely HCC to modify CE US LI-RADS. Diagnostic performance was assessed with specificity, sensitivity, and PPV.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of LR-5 as a predictor of HCC were 64.7%, 97.8%, and 98.9%, respectively. 32.1% patients with solitary liver nodule had AFP greater than 200 ng/ml, of which 98.8% were HCC (25.8%, 7.5%, 2.5% assigned to LR-M, LR-4, LR-3, respectively) and 1.2% were Combined Hepatocellular Cholangiocarcinoma. After modification, the sensitivity increased to 79.6% (P < 0.001), while specificity and PPV remained high (96.6% and 98.7%, P > 0.050).

CONCLUSION

The combination of CE US LI-RADS and AFP for diagnosing HCC improved diagnostic sensitivity significantly, while maintaining high PPV and specificity in patients with the solitary liver nodule.

What proportion of LI-RADS 5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LI-RADS 5 criteria?

OBJECTIVES

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) category 5 (definite hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) is assigned based on combinations of major imaging features (MFs): size, arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE), washout (WO), enhancing capsule, and threshold growth. The criteria were simplified in v2018 compared to v2017. The goal of this study is to assess the proportion of LR-5 observations reported in clinical practice with LI-RADS v2017 or v2018 that did not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported MFs.

METHODS

All MR and CT reports using a standardized LI-RADS template between April 2017 and September 2020 were identified retrospectively. For each reported LR-5 observation, size, MFs, and LI-RADS version (v2017 or v2018) were extracted. Reported MFs were used to determine whether LR-5 criteria were met using the applied version of LI-RADS. The data was summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Three hundred eight observations in 234 patients (67.6% male, mean age 66.2 years) were reported as LR-5, including 136 (44.2%) with v2017 and 172 (55.8%) with v2018. 8/136 (6%) v2017 LR-5 observations and 6/172 (3%) v2018 LR-5 observations did not meet LR-5 criteria. Of 8 incorrectly categorized v2017 observations, 3 (43%) lacked APHE, 1 (14%) was a 16-mm new observation with APHE only, and 4 (43%) were 10-19 mm with APHE and WO. Of the 6 incorrectly categorized v2018 observations, 5 (83%) lacked APHE and 1 (17%) was < 10 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on the LI-RADS version, 3-6% of LR-5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported MFs. Key Points • Depending on the LI-RADS version, 3-6% of LR-5 observations in clinical practice do not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported major imaging features. • Assigning LR-5 category to observations without nonrim arterial-phase hyperenhancement was the most common error.

Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot international survey

PURPOSE

To perform an international survey on current practices in imaging-based surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and assessment of treatment response for HCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three themes were covered in this international survey: demographics of respondents and liver imaging expertise; imaging practices for screening, surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and assessment of treatment response for HCC; and diagnostic imaging systems used. Descriptive summaries were created.

RESULTS

Of 151 respondents, 22.5% were from Asia, 6.0% from Europe, 19.9% from North America, 26.5% from South America, and 25.2% from Australasia; 57.0% respondents worked in academic and 34.4% in private or mixed settings. Non-contrast ultrasound was most commonly used for screening and surveillance of HCC (90.7%), and multiphase computed tomography was used for diagnosis (96.0%). Extracellular contrast agents (69.5%) were the most commonly used MRI contrast agents and Lumason/SonoVue (31.1%) is the most commonly used contrast-enhanced ultrasound contrast agent. A majority (94.0%) of respondents use ancillary imaging features for assessment of liver lesions in at-risk patients. Usage of diagnostic imaging systems for HCC varied by region. RECIST or mRECIST criteria were most commonly used for assessing HCC treatment response (48.3%). Most respondents agreed that a standardized classification for the diagnosis of HCC is needed (68.9%) and that an atlas and lexicon would help improve inter-reader agreement (71.5%).

CONCLUSION

Practices and recommendations for imaging of HCC vary between geographical regions. Future efforts to develop a unified system should address regional differences and potential barriers for adoption of a standardized diagnostic system for HCC.

Usefulness of the Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in Diagnosing Focal Liver Lesions by Inexperienced Radiologists

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the usefulness of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in diagnosing focal liver lesions (FLLs) by inexperienced radiologists.

METHODS

Images and clinical data from 258 patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent CEUS were collected retrospectively. Two trained inexperienced radiologists and 2 experienced radiologists reviewed all CEUS clips. Each inexperienced radiologist assigned a CEUS LI-RADS category for each observation and labeled it benign or malignant independently. Each experienced radiologist labeled each lesion malignant or benign independently using a conventional diagnostic method. Interobserver agreement of CEUS LI-RADS was analyzed by the κ test. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the LI-RADS category and conventional diagnosis was described by the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. All test results were considered significant at P < .05.

RESULTS

A κ value of 0.774 indicated that the CEUS LI-RADS algorithm resulted in substantial consistency between the inexperienced radiologists. For the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were improved significantly in inexperienced radiologists using the CEUS LI-RADS compared to conventional methods. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the experienced radiologists was almost equal to that of CEUS LI-RADS categories assigned by the inexperienced radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

The CEUS LI-RADS algorithm can not only obtain substantial consistency among inexperienced radiologists but also have excellent diagnostic efficacy in the differentiation of benign from malignant FLLs compared to conventional methods. As a comprehensive algorithm, the CEUS LI-RADS can act as a guide for trainees in learning how to diagnose FLLs.

Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions Using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) categorization of focal liver lesions (FLLs) on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in comparison with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI). A total of 63 patients with 84 FLLs were included in the final study population, after review of the electronic medical records and clinical data. Two trained radiologists evaluated all CEUS and CE-MRI images independently. They assigned a LI-RADS category to each FLL and assessed major features based on CEUS LI-RADS Version 2017 and computed tomography/MRI LI-RADS Version 2018. The generalized estimating equation method was used to compare the diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS algorithm between CEUS and CE-MRI. The sensitivity of LR-5/LR-TIV (tumor in vein) categories for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) differed significantly between CEUS and CE-MRI (88.9% [40/45], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 76.5%-95.2%), versus 64.4% (29/45; 95% CI: 49.8%-76.8%), p = 0.006; 82.2% (37/45; 95% CI: 68.7%-90.7%), versus 62.2% (28/45; 95% CI: 47.6%-74.9%), p = 0.034. Inter-observer agreement was substantial for assigning LR-5 on both CEUS and CE-MRI. For both reviewers, there was a higher frequency of LR-5 (44.0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.009; 42.9% vs. 26.2%, p = 0.023) in CEUS compared with CE-MRI. Arterial phase hyper-enhancement (APHE) was less frequently observed on CEUS than on CE-MRI (46.4% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.044). However, the washout appearance was observed more frequently on CEUS than on CE-MRI (50.0% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.004). Inter-observer agreement between the two reviewers on APHE and washout appearance was excellent for both CEUS and CE-MRI. These findings suggest that CEUS had a much higher sensitivity than CE-MRI in the diagnosis of HCC using LI-RADS, and although the frequencies of major features differed, inter-observer agreement between the two reviewers on major features of HCC was excellent for both CEUS and CE-MRI.

CEUS LI-RADS: a pictorial review

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy of US in the detection and characterization of focal liver lesions (FLLs), and it is suggested and often included in many international guidelines as an important diagnostic tool in the imaging work-up of cirrhotic patients at risk for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In particular, CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) provides standardized terminology, interpretation, and reporting for the diagnosis of HCC. The aim of this pictorial essay is to illustrate CEUS features of nodules discovered at US in cirrhotic liver according to LI-RADS categorization.

Accuracy of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Image Analysis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma or Overall Malignancy-A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) categorizes observations from imaging analyses of high-risk patients based on the level of suspicion for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and overall malignancy. The categories range from definitely benign (LR-1) to definitely HCC (LR-5), malignancy (LR-M), or tumor in vein (LR-TIV) based on findings from computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. However, the actual percentage of HCC and overall malignancy within each LI-RADS category is not known. We performed a systematic review to determine the percentage of observations in each LI-RADS category for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging that are HCCs or malignancies.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus databases from 2014 through 2018 for studies that reported the percentage of observations in each LI-RADS v2014 and v2017 category that were confirmed as HCCs or other malignancies based on pathology, follow-up imaging analyses, or response to treatment (reference standard). Data were assessed on a per-observation basis. Random-effects models were used to determine the pooled percentages of HCC and overall malignancy for each LI-RADS category. Differences between categories were compared by analysis of variance of logit-transformed percentage of HCC and overall malignancy. Risk of bias and concerns about applicability were assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 454 studies identified, 17 (all retrospective studies) were included in the final analysis, consisting of 2760 patients, 3556 observations, and 2482 HCCs. The pooled percentages of observations confirmed as HCC and overall malignancy, respectively, were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92%-96%) and 97% (95% CI 95%-99%) for LR-5, 74% (95% CI 67%-80%) and 80% (95% CI 75%-85%) for LR-4, 38% (95% CI 31%-45%) and 40% (95% CI 31%-50%) for LR-3, 13% (95% CI 8%-22%) and 14% (95% CI 9%-21%) for LR-2, 79% (95% CI 63%-89%) and 92% (95% CI 77%-98%) for LR-TIV, and 36% (95% CI 26%-48%) and 93% (95% CI 87%-97%) for LR-M. No malignancies were found in the LR-1 group. The percentage of HCCs and overall malignancies confirmed differed significantly among LR groups 2-5 (P < .00001). Patient selection was the most frequent factor that affected bias risk, because of verification bias and case-control study design.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review, we found that increasing LI-RADS categories contained increasing percentages of HCCs and overall malignancy based on reference standard confirmation. Of observations categorized as LR-M, 93% were malignancies and 36% were confirmed as HCCs. The percentage of HCCs found in the LR-2 and LR-3 categories indicate the need for a more active management strategy than currently recommended. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings. PROSPERO number CRD42018087441.

LI-RADS: a conceptual and historical review from its beginning to its recent integration into AASLD clinical practice guidance

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS^®) is a comprehensive system for standardizing the terminology, technique, interpretation, reporting, and data collection of liver observations in individuals at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS is supported and endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Upon its initial release in 2011, LI-RADS applied only to liver observations identified at CT or MRI. It has since been refined and expanded over multiple updates to now also address ultrasound-based surveillance, contrast-enhanced ultrasound for HCC diagnosis, and CT/MRI for assessing treatment response after locoregional therapy. The LI-RADS 2018 version was integrated into the HCC diagnosis, staging, and management practice guidance of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD). This article reviews the major LI-RADS updates since its 2011 inception and provides an overview of the currently published LI-RADS algorithms.

A practical diagnostic approach to hepatic masses

The differential diagnosis of hepatic mass lesions is broad and arriving at the right diagnosis can be challenging, especially on needle biopsies. The differential diagnosis of liver tumors in children is different from adults and is beyond the scope of this review. In adults, the approach varies depending on the age, gender, and presence of background liver disease. The lesions can be divided broadly into primary and metastatic (secondary), and the primary lesions can be further divided into those of hepatocellular origin and nonhepatocellular origin. The first category consists of benign and malignant lesions arising from hepatocytes, while the second category includes biliary, mesenchymal, hematopoietic, and vascular tumors. Discussion of nonepithelial neoplasms is beyond the scope of this review. The hepatocytic lesions comprise dysplastic nodules, focal nodular hyperplasia, hepatic adenoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and the differential diagnosis can be challenging requiring clinicopathological correlation and application of immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. Liver is a common site for metastasis, sometimes presenting with an unknown primary site, and proper workup is the key to arriving at the correct diagnosis. The correct diagnosis in this setting requires a systematic approach with attention to histologic features, imaging findings, clinical presentation, and judicious use of IHC markers. The list of antibodies that can be used for this purpose keeps on growing continually. It is important for pathologists to be up to date with the sensitivity and specificity of these markers and their diagnostic role and clinical implications. The purpose of this review is to outline the differential diagnosis of hepatic masses in adults and discuss an algorithmic approach to make a right diagnosis.

The preliminary application of liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) on small hepatic nodules (≤ 2cm)

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma with hepatic nodules (≤2cm). We retrospectively evaluated 56 CEUS exam records of hepatic nodules (≤2cm) performed between January 2015 and July 2016 at West China hospital. Each nodule was classified into a LI-RADS-CEUS category by two radiologists according to imaging features. The ultimate CEUS categories were then compared with pathological reports and their correlation was then calculated. Inter-observer agreement for LI-RADS between reader A and B was κ, 0.690, illustrating good consistency. The diagnostic accuracy of LR-5 on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was 86.49% but 11.11% for LR-M. LI-RADS-CEUS is a potential standardized categorization system for high-risk HCC patients but might also increase the false-negative diagnosis of nodules of less than 2cm.

LI-RADS 2017: An update

The computed tomography / magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting & Data System (LI-RADS) is a standardized system for diagnostic imaging terminology, technique, interpretation, and reporting in patients with or at risk for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Using diagnostic algorithms and tables, the system assigns to liver observations category codes reflecting the relative probability of HCC or other malignancies. This review article provides an overview of the 2017 version of CT/MRI LI-RADS with a focus on MRI. The main LI-RADS categories and their application will be described. Changes and updates introduced in this version of LI-RADS will be highlighted, including modifications to the diagnostic algorithm and to the optional application of ancillary features. Comparisons to other major diagnostic systems for HCC will be made, emphasizing key similarities, differences, strengths, and limitations. In addition, this review presents the new Treatment Response algorithm, while introducing the concepts of MRI nonviability and viability. Finally, planned future directions for LI-RADS will be outlined.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1459-1474.

Evidence Supporting LI-RADS Major Features for CT- and MR Imaging-based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) standardizes the interpretation, reporting, and data collection for imaging examinations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It assigns category codes reflecting relative probability of HCC to imaging-detected liver observations based on major and ancillary imaging features. LI-RADS also includes imaging features suggesting malignancy other than HCC. Supported and endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the system has been developed by a committee of radiologists, hepatologists, pathologists, surgeons, lexicon experts, and ACR staff, with input from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Development of LI-RADS has been based on literature review, expert opinion, rounds of testing and iteration, and feedback from users. This article summarizes and assesses the quality of evidence supporting each LI-RADS major feature for diagnosis of HCC, as well as of the LI-RADS imaging features suggesting malignancy other than HCC. Based on the evidence, recommendations are provided for or against their continued inclusion in LI-RADS. ^© RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: ESCULAP versus CEUS-LI-RADS

OBJECTIVE

A comparison is made of two contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) algorithms for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients: Erlanger Synopsis of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at Risk (ESCULAP) and American College of Radiology Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR-CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Focal liver lesions in 100 high-risk patients were assessed using both CEUS algorithms (ESCULAP and CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016) for a direct comparison. Lesions were categorized according to size and contrast enhancement in the arterial, portal venous and late phases.For the definite diagnosis of HCC, categories ESCULAP-4, ESCULAP-Tr and ESCULAP-V and CEUS-LI-RADS-LR-5, LR-Tr and LR-5-V were compared. In addition, CEUS-LI-RADS-category LR-M (definitely/probably malignant, but not specific for HCC) and ESCULAP-category C [intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (ICC)] were compared.Histology, CE-computed tomography and CE-MRI served as reference standards.

RESULTS

The reference standard among 100 lesions included 87 HCCs, six ICCs and seven non-HCC-non-ICC-lesions. For the diagnosis of HCC, the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was significantly higher with ESCULAP versus CEUS-LI-RADS (94.3%/72.4%; p<0.01). Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value for ESCULAP/CEUS-LI-RADS were 94.3%/72.4%; 61.5%/69.2%; 94.3%/94%; and 61.5%/27.3%, respectively.The diagnostic accuracy for ICC (LR-M/ESCULAP-C) was identical with both algorithms (50%), with higher PPV for ESCULAP-C versus LR-M (75 vs. 50%).

CONCLUSION

CEUS-based algorithms contribute toward standardized assessment and reporting of HCC-suspect lesions in high-risk patients. ESCULAP shows significantly higher diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and negative predictive value with no loss of specificity compared with CEUS-LI-RADS. Both algorithms have an excellent PPV. Arterial hyperenhancement is the key feature for the diagnosis of HCC with CEUS. Washout should not be a necessary prerequisite for the diagnosis of definite HCC. CEUS-LI-RADS in its current version is inferior to ESCULAP for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC. There are two ways to improve CEUS-LI-RADS: firstly, combination of the categories LR-4 and LR-5 for the diagnosis of definite HCC, and secondly, use of subtotal infiltration of a liver lobe as an additional feature.

Effect of threshold growth as a major feature on LI-RADS categorization

PURPOSE

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) uses major features (arterial phase hyperenhancement [APHE], "washout" [WO], "capsule," diameter, threshold growth [TG]) to codify probability of hepatocellular carcinoma for each observation. This study assessed the effect of removing TG as a major feature on LI-RADS categorization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved study, all MR and CT clinical reports containing a standardized LI-RADS v2014 template between 4/15-1/17 were retrospectively reviewed for each LR-3, LR-4, and LR-5 reported observation. Two LI-RADS categories were then assigned: one using all LI-RADS major features and one after removing TG as a major feature. The two categories were compared descriptively.

RESULTS

The study included 265 patients (172 [65%] male, mean age 63 [±10] years) with 489 observations (median diameter 14 mm, IQR 10-20 mm), of which 345 (71%) had APHE, 307 (63%) had WO, 86 (18%) had "capsule," and 72 (15%) had TG. Of 86 observations with TG, 47 (65%) were new observations ≥10 mm, 14 (19%) had diameter increase ≥50% in ≤6 months, and 11 (15%) had diameter increase ≥100% in >6 months. Using all major features, 214/489 (44%) observations were LR-3, 129/489 (26%) were LR-4, and 146/489 (30%) were LR-5. After removing TG, 237/489 (48%) were LR-3, 119/489 (24%) were LR-4, and 133 (27%) were LR-5. Removing TG caused a category downgrade for 35/489 (7%, 95% CI 5-10) observations, including 13/146 (9%, 95% CI 3-14) LR-5 observations.

CONCLUSION

9% of LR-5 observations would be downgraded without TG.

Diagnostic efficacy of the Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) with CT imaging in categorising small nodules (10-20 mm) detected in the cirrhotic liver at screening ultrasound

AIM

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) with computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing hepatic nodules (10-20 mm) detected in cirrhotic livers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-five patients with liver cirrhosis and a solitary nodule (10-20 mm in diameter) detected via ultrasound surveillance, underwent hepatic CT and fine-needle biopsy. All the CT images were analysed and the lesions were categorised into five categories according to the LI-RADS.

RESULTS

Final diagnoses of the 55 nodules were as follows: 34 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), one intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, one adrenocortical carcinoma metastasis, and 19 benign lesions. None (0%) of four LI-RADS category 1 lesions, two (22%) of nine category 2 lesions, seven (50%) of 14 category 3 lesions, two (67%) of three category 4 lesions, 22 (96%) of 23 category 5 lesions and one (50%) of two lesions classified as other malignancies was HCC. One category 5 lesion was adrenocortical carcinoma metastasis and one of two lesions categorised as other malignancies was intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In patients with nodules detected at surveillance ultrasound, the best threshold for confident HCC diagnosis was more than LI-RADS category 3. The use of this threshold produced a sensitivity and specificity of 72.7% and 90%, respectively. So combining LI-RADS 4 and 5 categories for confident HCC diagnosis would improve accuracy and sensitivity with no significant impairment of specificity or positive predictive value.

CONCLUSION

LIRADS with CT provides a strong validity for the diagnosis of small hepatic nodules, and is very useful to improve the accuracy of CT reports.

Critical analysis of the major and ancillary imaging features of LI-RADS on 127 proven HCCs evaluated with functional and morphological MRI: Lights and shadows

PURPOSE

To report a critical analysis of major and ancillary MR imaging features in assessment of HCC.

METHODS

Retrospectively we evaluated 70 cirrhotic patients with 173 nodules, which were subjected to MR study at 0 time (MR0), after 3 (MR3) and 6 months (MR6) using two different contrast media. EOB-GD-DTPA was injected at MR0 and MR6, while Gd-BT-DO3A at MR3. Three expert hepatic radiologists reviewed all images, recording, according to LI-RADS, the size, the presence and quality of arterial-phase hyperenhancement, washout and capsule appearance, threshold growth. Additionally, we recorded signal intensity (SI) on T2-W images, on DWI, on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and SI on T1-W images of EOB-GD-BPTA hepatospecific phase. Median value of ADC and of Intravoxel incoherent motion related parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

127 HCCs and 24 dysplastic nodules were assessed. Hypervascular on arterial phase was found in 84 HCCs, washout appearance in 124, capsule appearance in 111, hypointensity on hepatospecific phase in 127, hyperintensity on T2-W sequences and restricted diffusion in 107. Hyper vascular on arterial phase was found in 17 dysplastic nodules, wash-out appearance in 2, hypointensity on hepatospecific phase in 7 while no dysplastic nodules showed capsule appearance, hyperintensity on T2-W and restricted diffusion. Highest accuracy was obtained by washout appearance and hypointense signal on hepatospecific phase (97% and 95%).

CONCLUSIONS

Hypointensity on hepatospecific phase and washout appearance are the most relevant diagnostic sign for differentiating low-risk from high-risk HCC nodules. The capsule appearance, T2-W hyperintensity and restricted diffusion have high positive predictive value.

Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) version 2014: understanding and application of the diagnostic algorithm

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a system for interpreting and reporting of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the liver in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS has been developed to address the limitations of prior imaging-based criteria including the lack of established consensus regarding the exact definitions of imaging features, binary categorization (either definite or not definite HCC), and failure to consider non-HCC malignancies. One of the most important goals of LI-RADS is to facilitate clear communication between all the personnel involved in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC, such as radiologists, hepatologists, surgeons, and pathologists. Therefore, clinicians should also be familiar with LI-RADS. This article reviews the LI-RADS diagnostic algorithm, and the definitions and management implications of LI-RADS categories.

Safety and efficacy of a China-made cryoablation device in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than 5 cm

AIM

To assess the safety and efficacy of a China-made cryoablation device in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) smaller than 5 cm.

METHODS

A total of 33 patients with HCC smaller than 5 cm were treated by cryoablation using a China-made cryoablation device under the guidance of computed tomography. Operation-associated complications within and after procedures were evaluated. The efficacy of target lesions within procedures and local recurrence rate after procedures were evaluated with imaging modalities.

RESULTS

All 37 lesions of the 33 patients were successfully treated with a China-made cryablation device. Upon the finish of procedures, complete ablation was achieved in 83.78% (31/37) of lesions, and partial ablation was achieved in 16.22% (6/37). In a median follow-up period of 10.8 mo, 32 patients remained alive and 1 was lost to follow-up. The rate of local recurrence for target lesions was 30.3% (10/33), which is equal to that achieved with imported devices.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the China-made cryoablation device is safe and effective for HCC smaller than 5 cm with the capability of destroying the whole tumor lesion.