Change in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions Using Gadoxetate Disodium Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared With Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography

Sirlin C, Song B, Taouli B, Yoshimitsu K, Koh DM. Consensus report from the 8th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging

OBJECTIVES

The 8th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), held in Basel, Switzerland, in October 2017, brought together clinical and academic radiologists from around the world to discuss developments in and reach consensus on key issues in the field of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI since the previous Forum held in 2013.

METHODS

Two main themes in liver MRI were considered in detail at the Forum: the use of gadoxetic acid for contrast-enhanced MRI in patients with liver cirrhosis and the technical performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI, both opportunities and challenges. This article summarises the expert presentations and the delegate voting on consensus statements discussed at the Forum.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI has higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), when compared with multidetector CT, by utilising features of hyperenhancement in the arterial phase and hypointensity in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP). Recent HCC management guidelines recognise an increasing role for gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in early diagnosis and monitoring post-resection. Additional research is needed to define the role of HBP in predicting microvascular invasion, to better define washout during the transitional phase in gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for HCC diagnosis, and to reduce the artefacts encountered in the arterial phase. Technical developments are being directed to shortening the MRI protocol for reducing time and patient discomfort and toward utilising faster imaging and non-Cartesian free-breathing approaches that have the potential to improve multiphasic dynamic imaging.

KEY POINTS

• Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI provides higher diagnostic sensitivity than CT for diagnosing HCC. • Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI has roles in early-HCC diagnosis and monitoring post-resection response. • Faster imaging and free-breathing approaches have potential to improve multiphasic dynamic imaging.

Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: comparison between computed tomography and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

To determine the consistency of major hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) features between CT and MRI based on Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 and to investigate the additional value on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent dynamic CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI within 1 month were investigated. Two radiologists evaluated the presence of major HCC features and categorized observations using LI-RADS v2018 algorithm. In addition, each observation was recorded as hyper-, iso-, or hypo-intensity on hepatobiliary-phase (HBP) images.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients with 110 observations were identified. Among 88 observations classified as LR-3, 4 or 5, arterial phase hyper-enhancement and washout appearance showed higher frequencies on CT than on MRI (75.0% vs. 58.0%, P < 0.001, and 60.2% vs. 44.3%, P = 0.014, respectively). Of the 59 LR-3 observations categorized on MRI, 70.0% of observations with hypo-intensity on HBP images were HCCs, whereas 89.5% of observations with iso- or hyper-intensity on HBP images were non-HCCs (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: The frequencies of arterial phase hyper-enhancement and washout appearances were higher on CT than on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. For LR-3 observations, adding the hepatobiliary-phase hypo-intensity to major features improved the diagnostic performance of MRI in distinguishing HCCs from non-HCC lesions.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Version 2018: Imaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in At-Risk Patients

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is composed of four individual algorithms intended to standardize the lexicon, as well as reporting and care, in patients with or at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma in the context of surveillance with US; diagnosis with CT, MRI, or contrast material-enhanced US; and assessment of treatment response with CT or MRI. This report provides a broad overview of LI-RADS, including its historic development, relationship to other imaging guidelines, composition, aims, and future directions. In addition, readers will understand the motivation for and key components of the 2018 update.

The capsule appearance of hepatocellular carcinoma in gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging: Correlation with pathology and dynamic CT

This study aimed to evaluate the capability of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR (GAeMR) to detect presence of capsule appearance in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and to correlate it with dynamic computed tomography (CT) and pathological features.Sixty-three patients (54: 9 = M: F, mean age 55.8) surgically confirmed HCCs with preoperative CT and GAeMR were included in this retrospective study. Two readers evaluated presence of capsule appearances on CT and GAeMR images in each phase including precontrast (Pre), portal phase (PP), delayed phase (DP), transitional phase (TP), and hepatobiliary phase (HBP). Histologic capsule was compared with CT and GAeMR. Diagnostic performance of CT and GAeMR of each phase for histologic capsule was evaluated and compared by receiver operating characteristic curve. Interobserver agreement was assessed with kappa statistics.Histologically the capsule was complete in 12.7% (8/63) and incomplete in 60.3% (38/63). Four cases (6.3%) were pseudocapsule. Interobserver agreement for capsule appearance on GAeMR was good in Pre (κ = 0.684), moderate in PP (κ = 0.434), poor in TP (κ = 0.187), fair in HBP (κ = 0.395), and moderate on CT in PP (κ = 0.476) and DP (κ = 0.485). Diagnostic performance and sensitivity for the histologic capsule in DP on CT was highest among PP on CT and other phases on GAeMR. DP on CT images showed a higher Az value than PP on CT images with statistical significance (P < .001). PP on MR images revealed higher Az value than PP on CT images.The capsule appearance was most frequently observed in the DP on CT with highest diagnostic performance, and so DP images should be obtained on CT study for liver mass categorization. GAeMR yielded comparable capsule appearance to CT with moderate interobserver agreement. Considering hypointense rim on the HBP as fibrous capsule on pathology should be refrained, and so further study is warranted to correlate HBP hypointense rim with pathologic findings.

Interobserver and intermodality agreement of standardized algorithms for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients: CEUS-LI-RADS versus MRI-LI-RADS

OBJECTIVES

We compared the interobserver agreement for the recently introduced contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-based algorithm CEUS-LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System) versus the well-established magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-LI-RADS for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Focal liver lesions in 50 high-risk patients (mean age 66.2 ± 11.8 years; 39 male) were assessed retrospectively with CEUS and MRI. Two independent observers reviewed CEUS and MRI examinations, separately, classifying observations according to CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016 and MRI-LI-RADSv.2014. Interobserver agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Forty-three lesions were HCCs; two were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas; five were benign lesions. Arterial phase hyperenhancement was perceived less frequently with CEUS than with MRI (37/50 / 38/50 lesions = 74%/78% [CEUS; observer 1/observer 2] versus 46/50 / 44/50 lesions = 92%/88% [MRI; observer 1/observer 2]). Washout appearance was observed in 34/50 / 20/50 lesions = 68%/40% with CEUS and 31/50 / 31/50 lesions = 62%/62%) with MRI. Interobserver agreement was moderate for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.511/0.565 [CEUS/MRI]) and "washout" (ĸ = 0.490/0.582 [CEUS/MRI]), fair for CEUS-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.309) and substantial for MRI-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.609). Intermodality agreement was fair for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.329), slight to fair for "washout" (ĸ = 0.202) and LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.218) CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement is substantial for MRI-LI-RADS and only fair for CEUS-LI-RADS. This is mostly because interobserver agreement in the perception of washout appearance is better in MRI than in CEUS. Further refinement of the LI-RADS algorithms and increasing education and practice may be necessary to improve the concordance between CEUS and MRI for the final LI-RADS categorization.

KEY POINTS

• CEUS-LI-RADS and MRI-LIRADS enable standardized non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. • With CEUS, interobserver agreement is better for arterial hyperenhancement than for "washout". • Interobserver agreement for major features is moderate for both CEUS and MRI. • Interobserver agreement for LI-RADS category is substantial for MRI, and fair for CEUS. • Interobserver-agreement for CEUS-LI-RADS will presumably improve with ongoing use of the algorithm.