Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma and solitary hypovascular liver metastases: is the differential diagnosis using diffusion-weighted MRI possible?

A convenient scoring system to distinguish intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from solitary colorectal liver metastasis based on magnetic resonance imaging features

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a diagnostic scoring system to differentiate intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (IMCC) from solitary colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM).

METHODS

A total of 366 patients (263 in the training cohort, 103 in the validation cohort) who underwent MRI examination with pathologically proven either IMCC or CRLM from two centers were included. Twenty-eight MRI features were collected. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors for distinguishing IMCC from solitary CRLM. The independent predictors were weighted over based on regression coefficients to build a scoring system. The overall score distribution was divided into three groups to show the diagnostic probability of CRLM.

RESULTS

Six independent predictors, including hepatic capsular retraction, peripheral hepatic enhancement, vessel penetrating the tumor, upper abdominal lymphadenopathy, peripheral washout at the portal venous phase, and rim enhancement at the portal venous phase were included in the system. All predictors were assigned 1 point. At a cutoff of 3 points, AUCs for this score model were 0.948 and 0.903 with sensitivities of 96.5% and 92.0%, specificities of 84.4% and 71.7%, positive predictive values of 87.7% and 75.4%, negative predictive values of 95.4% and 90.5%, and accuracies of 90.9% and 81.6% for the training and validation cohorts, respectively. An increasing trend was shown in the diagnostic probability of CRLM among the three groups based on the score.

CONCLUSIONS

The established scoring system is reliable and convenient for distinguishing IMCC from solitary CRLM using six MRI features.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

A reliable and convenient scoring system was developed to differentiate between intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from solitary colorectal liver metastasis using six MRI features.

KEY POINTS

• Characteristic MRI features were identified to distinguish intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (IMCC) from solitary colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). • A model to distinguish IMCC from solitary CRLM was created based on 6 features, including hepatic capsular retraction, upper abdominal lymphadenopathy, peripheral washout at the portal venous phase, rim enhancement at the portal venous phase, peripheral hepatic enhancement, and vessel penetrating the tumor.

A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls

Liver cancer is the sixth most detected tumor and the third leading cause of tumor death worldwide. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy with specific risk factors and a targeted population. Imaging plays a major role in the management of HCC from screening to post-therapy follow-up. In order to optimize the diagnostic-therapeutic management and using a universal report, which allows more effective communication among the multidisciplinary team, several classification systems have been proposed over time, and LI-RADS is the most utilized. Currently, LI-RADS comprises four algorithms addressing screening and surveillance, diagnosis on computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diagnosis on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and treatment response on CT/MRI. The algorithm allows guiding the radiologist through a stepwise process of assigning a category to a liver observation, recognizing both major and ancillary features. This process allows for characterizing liver lesions and assessing treatment. In this review, we highlighted both major and ancillary features that could define HCC. The distinctive dynamic vascular pattern of arterial hyperenhancement followed by washout in the portal-venous phase is the key hallmark of HCC, with a specificity value close to 100%. However, the sensitivity value of these combined criteria is inadequate. Recent evidence has proven that liver-specific contrast could be an important tool not only in increasing sensitivity but also in diagnosis as a major criterion. Although LI-RADS emerges as an essential instrument to support the management of liver tumors, still many improvements are needed to overcome the current limitations. In particular, features that may clearly distinguish HCC from cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and combined HCC-CCA lesions and the assessment after locoregional radiation-based therapy are still fields of research.

Conventional, functional and radiomics assessment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Background

This paper offers an assessment of diagnostic tools in the evaluation of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

Methods

Several electronic datasets were analysed to search papers on morphological and functional evaluation in ICC patients. Papers published in English language has been scheduled from January 2010 to December 2021.

Results

We found that 88 clinical studies satisfied our research criteria. Several functional parameters and morphological elements allow a truthful ICC diagnosis. The contrast medium evaluation, during the different phases of contrast studies, support the recognition of several distinctive features of ICC. The imaging tool to employed and the type of contrast medium in magnetic resonance imaging, extracellular or hepatobiliary, should change considering patient, departement, and regional features. Also, Radiomics is an emerging area in the evaluation of ICCs.

Post treatment studies are required to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of therapies so as the patient surveillance.

Conclusions

Several morphological and functional data obtained during Imaging studies allow a truthful ICC diagnosis.

Distinction Between Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Hypervascular Liver Metastases in Non-cirrhotic Patients Using Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Purpose: This study aims to identify the hallmarks of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging distinguishing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from hypervascular liver metastases (HLMs). Methods: Between January 2008 and October 2020, among patients who underwent gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI, those who met the following criteria were retrospectively included: without chronic hepatitis or liver stiffness ≤ 2.5 kPa on magnetic resonance elastography or F0/F1 on pathological assessment. Two blinded radiologists reviewed the imaging findings to judge the presence or absence of the enhancing capsule, nonperipheral washout, corona enhancement, hypointensity in the transitional/hepatobiliary phase (HBP), hyperintensity on T2-weighted/diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), mosaic architecture, and blood products/fat in mass. The lesion-to-liver signal intensity ratios in HBP and DWI were also calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the imaging hallmarks distinguishing HCC from HLM. Interobserver agreement was calculated using kappa values and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: The final study cohort comprised 72 lesions in 44 patients (mean age, 65.0±11.9 years). Univariate analysis revealed higher frequencies of the following features in HCC than in HLM (P < .10): nonperipheral washout, corona enhancement, transitional phase hypointensity, mosaic architecture, and fat in mass (P = .002-.073). Multivariate analysis revealed that nonperipheral washout and mosaic architecture favored the diagnosis of HCC over that of HLM with odds ratios of 7.66 and 14.6, respectively (P = .038 and .029, respectively). The interobserver agreement for each item was moderate or substantial (kappa or ICC = .447-.792). Conclusion: Peripheral washout and mosaic architecture may be reliable imaging hallmarks for distinguishing HCC from HLM.

Imaging Spectrum of Intrahepatic Mass-Forming Cholangiocarcinoma and Its Mimickers: How to Differentiate Them Using MRI

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary hepatic malignancy, with mass-forming growth pattern being the most common. The typical imaging appearance of mass-forming ICC (mICC) consists of irregular ring enhancement in the arterial phase followed by the progressive central enhancement on portal venous and delayed phases. However, atypical imaging presentation in the form of hypervascular mICC might also be seen, which can be attributed to distinct pathological characteristics. Ancillary imaging features such as lobular shape, capsular retraction, segmental biliary dilatation, and vascular encasement favor the diagnosis of mICC. Nevertheless, these radiological findings may also be present in certain benign conditions such as focal confluent fibrosis, sclerosing hemangioma, organizing hepatic abscess, or the pseudosolid form of hydatid disease. In addition, a few malignant lesions including primary liver lymphoma, hemangioendothelioma, solitary hypovascular liver metastases, and atypical forms of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), such as scirrhous HCC, infiltrative HCC, and poorly differentiated HCC, may also pose a diagnostic dilemma by simulating mICC in imaging studies. Diffusion-weighted imaging and the use of hepatobiliary contrast agents might be helpful for differential diagnosis in certain cases. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive overview of mICC imaging features and to describe useful tips for differential diagnosis with its potential mimickers.

Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values for the differentiation of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma liver metastases

Background

We aimed to investigate whether there is a difference between intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) and liver metastases of gastrointestinal system (GIS) adenocarcinoma in terms of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values.

Patients and methods

From January 2018 to January 2020, we retrospectively examined 64 consecutive patients with liver metastases due to gastrointestinal system adenocarcinomas and 13 consecutive IHCC in our hospital’s medical records. After exclusions, fifty-three patients with 53 liver metastases and 10 IHCC were included in our study. We divided the patients into two groups as IHCC and liver metastases of GIS adenocarcinoma. For mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC_mean) values, the region of interests (ROI) was placed in solid portions of the lesions. ADC_mean values of groups were compared.

Results

The mean age of IHCC group was 62.50 ± 13.49 and mean age of metastases group was 61.15 ± 9.18. ADC_mean values were significantly higher in the IHCC group compared to the metastatic group (p < 0.001). ROC curves method showed high diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.879) with cut-off value of < 1178 x 10^-6 mm²/s for ADC_mean (Sensitivity = 90.57, Specificity = 70.0, positive predictive value [PPV] = 94.1, negative predictive value [NPV] = 58.3) in differentiating adenocarcinoma metastases from IHCC.

Conclusions

The present study results suggest that ADC values have a potential role for differentiation between IHCC and GIS adenocarcinoma liver metastases which may be valuable for patient management.

The role of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging in characterization of hypovascular liver lesions: A prospective comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters and apparent diffusion coefficient

BACKGROUND

The utility of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) related parameters in differentiation of hypovascular liver lesions is still unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of IVIM related parameters in comparison to apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiation among intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (IMC), and hypovascular liver metastases (HLM).

METHODS

Seventy-four prospectively enrolled patients (21 IMC, and 53 HLM) underwent 1.5T magnetic resonance examination with IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging using seven b values (0-800 s/mm2). Two independent readers performed quantitative analysis of IVIM-related parameters and ADC. Interobserver reliability was tested using a intraclass correlation coefficient. ADC, true diffusion coefficient (D), perfusion-related diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (ƒ) were compared among the lesions using Kruskal-Wallis H test. The diagnostic accuracy of each parameter was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

The interobserver agreement was good for ADC (0.802), and excellent for D, D*, and ƒ (0.911, 0.927, and 0.942, respectively). ADC, and D values were significantly different among IMC and HLM (both p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference among these lesions for ƒ and D* (p = 0.101, and p = 0.612, respectively). ROC analysis showed higher diagnostic performance of D in comparison to ADC (AUC = 0.879 vs 0.821).

CONCLUSION

IVIM-derived parameters in particular D, in addition to ADC, could help in differentiation between most common hypovascular malignant liver lesions, intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma and hypovascular liver metastases.

Cholangiocarcinoma - Part 2, Tumoral and Nontumoral Mimics and Imaging Features Helpful in Differentiation

Each of the 3 morphological subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma has a different set of imaging differentials. Emulators of mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma include other primary and secondary hepatic malignancies, benign tumors and tumor-like mimics such as abscess, hemangioma and confluent hepatic fibrosis. Benign inflammatory biliary strictures constitute the major differential of periductal-infiltrative type and intraductal calculi are the main consideration for intraductal-growth type. CT and MRI are the standard imaging tools for characterization of cholangiocarcinoma and differentiating it from close mimics. Here we will describe the various tumoral and non-tumoral mimics of cholangiocarcinoma and discuss specific imaging features useful in differentiation.

Improving the Quality of Diffusion-weighted Imaging of the Left Hepatic Lobe Using Weighted Averaging of Signals from Multiple Excitations

Background:

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is useful for detecting and characterizing liver lesions but is sensitive to organ motion artifact, especially in the left lobe.

Purpose:

To assess the signal intensity (SI) loss in the left hepatic lobe on DWI depending on motion-proving gradient (MPG) pulse direction (preliminary study) and to evaluate the usefulness of modified signal averaging to reduce the SI loss on DWI (application study).

Methods:

About 48 (preliminary) and 35 (application) patients were included. In the preliminary study, DWI with four different MPG directions, only a single MPG pulse direction (x-, y-, or z-axis) and all three directions combined (standard DWI), were reconstructed from the original data. In the application study, we examined the usefulness of the weighted averaging number of excitations (wNEX) method, in which a larger weighting factor is applied to the higher signal in pixel-by-pixel NEX signal averaging by comparing four reconstruction methods. We assumed that true signals would be the same in both lobes. The SI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ratios for the left versus right lobe were calculated by dividing the SI/ADC of the right lobe by that of the left lobe.

Results:

In the preliminary study, the SI ratio was significantly lower on DWI using only the x-axis but was significantly higher on DWI using only the z-axis (both P < 0.0001) when compared with standard DWI. In the application study, the SI (mean, 1.15–1.17) and ADC (0.90–0.92) ratios on DWI with wNEX were closer to 1.0 than those on standard DWI (SI ratio, 1.32–1.38; ADC ratio 0.80–0.81); the differences were significant (all P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

The MPG pulse along the z-axis caused signal loss in the left hepatic lobe. The wNEX reconstruction method effectively reduced signal loss in the left lobe on DWI.