Diagnostic Performance of LI-RADS Version 2018, LI-RADS Version 2017, and OPTN Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Best Practice for MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Research With Lessons and Examples from the LI-RADS Individual Participant Data Group

Medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy research is strengthened by adhering to best practices for study design, data collection, data documentation, and study reporting. In this review, key elements of such research are discussed, and specific recommendations provided for optimizing diagnostic accuracy study execution to improve uniformity, minimize common sources of bias and avoid potential pitfalls. Examples are provided regarding study methodology and data collection practices based on insights gained by the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) individual participant data group, who have evaluated raw data from numerous MRI diagnostic accuracy studies for risk of bias and data integrity. The goal of this review is to outline strategies for investigators to improve research practices, and to help reviewers and readers better contextualize a study's findings while understanding its limitations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) category 5 has high specificity and modest sensitivity for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 vs combined LR-4 and LR-5 (LR-4/5) for HCC diagnosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 03, 2023 were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 and combined LR-4/5 for HCC diagnosis, using CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2014, 2017, or 2018. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation diagnostic performance. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies (15,108 observations, 9928 (65.7%) HCCs) were included. Compared to LR-5, combined LR-4/5 showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (83.0% (95% CI [80.3-85.8%]) vs 65.7% (95% CI [62.4-69.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled specificity (75.0% (95% CI [70.5-79.6%]) vs 91.7% (95% CI [90.2-93.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled positive likelihood ratio (3.60 (95% CI [3.06-4.23]) vs 6.18 (95% CI [5.35-7.14]); p < 0.001), and lower pooled negative likelihood ratio (0.22 (95% CI [0.19-0.25]) vs 0.38 (95% CI [0.35-0.41]) vs; p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that combining LR-4 and LR-5 would increase sensitivity but decrease specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. These findings may inform management guidelines and individualized management.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This meta-analysis estimated the magnitude of changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria when LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 were combined; these findings can inform management guidelines and individualized management.

KEY POINTS

There is no single worldwide reporting system for liver imaging, partly due to regional needs. Combining LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 increased sensitivity and decreased specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria can inform management guidelines and individualized management.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 category 5 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We performed an updated meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) 5 category for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018), and to evaluate differences by imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 using v2018 for diagnosing HCC. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies qualified for the meta-analysis, comprising 9031 patients, 10,547 observations, and 7216 HCCs. The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC were 66% (95% CI, 61-70%) and 91% (95% CI, 89-93%), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, MRI with extracellular agent (ECA-MRI) showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (77% [95% CI, 70-82%]) than CT (66% [95% CI, 58-73%]; p = 0.023) or MRI with gadoxetate (Gx-MRI) (65% [95% CI, 60-70%]; p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference between ECA-MRI and MRI with gadobenate (gadobenate-MRI) (73% [95% CI, 61-82%]; p = 0.495). Pooled specificities were 88% (95% CI, 80-93%) for CT, 92% (95% CI, 86-95%) for ECA-MRI, 93% (95% CI, 91-95%) for Gx-MRI, and 91% (95% CI, 84-95%) for gadobenate-MRI without significant differences (p = 0.084-0.803).

CONCLUSIONS

LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material, while ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT or Gx-MRI.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Refinement of the criteria for improving sensitivity while maintaining high specificity of LR-5 for HCC diagnosis may be an essential future direction.

KEY POINTS

• The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC using LI-RADSv2018 were 66% and 91%, respectively. • ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT (77% vs 66%, p = 0.023) or Gx-MRI (77% vs 65%, p = 0.001). • LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity (88-93%) for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material type.

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.

Per-patient Negative Predictive Value of the CT and MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018 Treatment Response Algorithm for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (TRA) is a high-specificity, lower-sensitivity grading system to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and recurrence after local-regional therapy. However, the emphasis on specificity can result in disease understaging, potentially leading to poorer posttransplant outcomes. Purpose To determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of pretransplant CT and MRI assessment for viable HCC on a per-patient basis using the LI-RADS TRA, considering explant pathology as the reference standard. Materials and Methods Patient records from 218 consecutive adult patients from a single institution with HCC who underwent liver transplant from January 2011 to November 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Two readers blinded to the original report reviewed immediate (within 90 days) pretransplant imaging and characterized observations according to the LI-RADS TRA. Based on this, patients with LR-4, LR-5, or LR-TR (treatment response) viable tumors were designated as viable tumor; patients with solely LR-3 or LR-TR equivocal tumors were designated as equivocal; and patients with only LR-TR nonviable lesions were designated as no viable disease. Patients were designated as within or outside the Milan criteria. These per-patient designations were compared with the presence of viable disease at explant pathology. Fisher exact test was used to compare the differences between CT and MRI. Weighted κ values were used to calculate interreader reliability. Results Final study sample consisted of 206 patients (median age, 61 years [IQR, 57-65 years]; 157 male patients and 49 female patients). Per-patient LI-RADS TRA assessment of pretransplant imaging had an NPV of 32% (95% CI: 27, 38) and 26% (95% CI: 20, 33) (readers 1 and 2, respectively) for predicting viable disease. Seventy-five percent (reader 1) and 77% (reader 2) of patients deemed equivocal had residual tumors at explant pathology. Weighted interreader reliability was substantial (κ = 0.62). Conclusion Patient-based stratification of viable, equivocal, and nonviable disease at pretransplant CT or MRI, based on LI-RADS TRA, demonstrated low negative predictive value in excluding HCC at explant pathology. © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Tamir and Tau in this issue.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018: differential diagnostic value of ADC values for benign and malignant nodules with moderate probability (LR-3)

Objective

To evaluate the usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in differentiating between benign and malignant LR-3 lesions classified by Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 2018 (LI-RADS v2018).

Methods

Retrospectively analyzed 88 patients with liver nodules confirmed by pathology and classified as LR-3 by LI-RADS. All patients underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced MR examination, and the following patient-related imaging features were collected: tumor size,nonrim APHE, nonperipheral "washout", enhancing "capsule", mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity, fat in mass, restricted diffusion, and nodule-in-nodule architecture. We performed ROC analysis and calculated the sensitivity and specificity.

Results

A total of 122 lesions were found in 88 patients, with 68 benign and 54 malignant lesions. The mean ADC value for malignant and benign lesions were 1.01 ± 0.15 × 103 mm2/s and 1.41 ± 0.31 × 103 mm2/s, respectively. The ADC value of malignant lesions was significantly lower than that of benign lesions, p < 0.0001. Compared with other imaging features, ADC values had the highest AUC (AUC = 0.909), with a sensitivity of 92.6% and a specificity of 74.1% for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions.

Conclusions

ADC values are useful for differentiating between benign and malignant liver nodules in LR-3 classification, it improves the sensitivity of LI-RADS in the diagnosis of HCC while maintaining high specificity, and we recommend including ADC values in the standard interpretation of LI-RADSv2018.

Review article: Available modalities for screening and imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma-Current gaps and challenges

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence and mortality continue to rise worldwide. Society guidelines recommend HCC screening for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) or cirrhosis. Unfortunately, HCC screening rates remain relatively low, and the performance characteristics of current screening modalities are suboptimal.

AIM

The aim of the study was to discuss the current state of HCC screening and imaging diagnosis utilising standard and emerging imaging modalities in addition to outlining areas of need and ongoing study.

METHODS

A review of the field was performed combining literature searches and expert opinion.

RESULTS

The development of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS version 2018) algorithms have advanced and standardised the imaging diagnosis of HCC. While guidelines recommend US for HCC screening, the sensitivity of ultrasound is highly variable for the detection of early-stage HCC with sensitivity reports ranging from 40% to 80%. Biomarker-based scores such as GALAD and alternative imaging modalities such as abbreviated MRI are promising tools to improve HCC early detection. Patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and patients hepatitis C (HCV) who have achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) can present a clinical dilemma regarding the need for HCC screening. Biomarkers and elastography can aid in identification of individuals at high risk for HCC in these populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The LI-RADS system has standardised the imaging interpretation and diagnosis of HCC. Work remains regarding screening in special populations and optimization of screening modalities.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: State of the art diagnostic imaging

Primary liver cancer is the fourth most common malignancy worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprising up to 90% of cases. Imaging is a staple for surveillance and diagnostic criteria for HCC in current guidelines. Because early diagnosis can impact treatment approaches, utilizing new imaging methods and protocols to aid in differentiation and tumor grading provides a unique opportunity to drastically impact patient prognosis. Within this review manuscript, we provide an overview of imaging modalities used to screen and evaluate HCC. We also briefly discuss emerging uses of new imaging techniques that offer the potential for improving current paradigms for HCC characterization, management, and treatment monitoring.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network hepatocellular carcinoma classification: Alignment with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System, current gaps, and future direction

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) updated its allocation policy for liver transplantation to align with the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging algorithm had achieved congruency with the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) HCC Practice Guidance in 2018, and therefore, alignment of OPTN, LI-RADS, and AASLD unifies HCC diagnostic approaches. The two changes to the OPTN HCC classification are adoption of LI-RADS terminology or lexicon for HCC major imaging features as well as the modification of OPTN Class-5A through the adoption of LI-RADS-5 criteria. However, despite this significant milestone, the OPTN allocation policy may benefit from further refinements such as adoption of treatment response assessment criteria after locoregional therapy and categorization criteria for lesions with atypical imaging appearances that are not specific for HCC. In this review, we detail the changes to the OPTN HCC classification to achieve alignment with LI-RADS, discuss current limitations of the OPTN classification, and explore future directions.

Clinical outcomes of patients with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 or Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 4 observations in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review

Patients with indeterminate liver nodules, classified as LR-3 and LR-4 observations per the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System, are at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but risk estimates remain imprecise. We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to December 2021 to identify cohort studies examining HCC incidence among patients with LR-3 or LR-4 observations on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Predictors of HCC were abstracted from each study, when available. Of 13 total studies, nine conducted LR-3 observation-level analyses, with the proportions of incident HCC ranging from 1.2% to 12.5% at 12 months and 4.2% to 44.4% during longer study follow-up. Among three studies with patient-level analyses, 8%-22.2% of patients with LR-3 lesions developed LR-4 observations and 11.1%-24.5% developed HCC. Among nine studies conducting LR-4 observation-level analyses, incident HCC ranged from 30.8% to 44.0% at 12 months and 30.9% to 71.0% during study follow-up; conversely, 6%-42% of observations were downgraded to LR-3 or lower. Patient-level factors associated with HCC included older age, male sex, higher alpha-fetoprotein levels, viral etiology, and prior history of HCC; observation-level factors included maximum diameter, threshold growth, T2 hyperintensity, and visibility on ultrasound. Studies were limited by small sample sizes, inclusion of patients with prior HCC, short follow-up duration, and failure to account for clustering of observations in patients or competing risks of transplantation and death. LR-3 and LR-4 observations have elevated but variable risks of HCC. Higher quality studies are necessary to identify high-risk patients who warrant close CT or MRI-based follow-up.

The clinicopathological and prognostic factors of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 10-year tertiary center experience in Egypt

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major health problem despite the emergence of several preventive and therapeutic modalities. HCC has heterogeneous and wide morpho-molecular patterns, resulting in unique clinical and prognostic criteria. Therefore, we aimed to study the clinical and pathological criteria of HCC to update the morpho-molecular classifications and provide a guide to the diagnosis of this disease.

METHODS

Five hundred thirty pathologically analyzed HCC cases were included in this study. The clinical and survival data of these cases were collected.

RESULTS

Hepatitis C virus is still the dominant cause of HCC in Egypt. Post-direct-acting antiviral agent HCC showed an aggressive course compared to interferon-related HCC. Old age, male gender, elevated alpha-fetoprotein level, tumor size, and background liver were important prognostic parameters. Special HCC variants have characteristic clinical, laboratory, radiological, prognostic, and survival data. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes rather than neutrophil-rich HCC have an excellent prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

HCC is a heterogenous tumor with diverse clinical, pathological, and prognostic parameters. Incorporating the clinicopathological profile per specific subtype is essential in the treatment decision of patients with HCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This was a retrospective study that included 530 HCC cases eligible for analysis. The cases were obtained from the archives of the Pathology Department, during the period between January 2010 and December 2019. Clinical and survival data were collected from the patients' medical records after approval by the institutional review board (IRB No. 246/2021) of Liver National Institute, Menoufia University. The research followed the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05047146).

Risk Stratification and Distribution of Hepatocellular Carcinomas in CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS: A Meta-Analysis

Background

CEUS LI-RADS and CT/MRI LI-RADS have been used in clinical practice for several years. However, there is a lack of evidence-based study to compare the proportion of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) in each category and the distribution of HCCs of these two categorization systems.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of HCCs between corresponding CEUS LI-RADS and CT/MRI LI-RADS categories and the distribution of HCCs and non-HCC malignancies in each category.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases from January 2014 to December 2021. The proportion of HCCs and non-HCC malignancies and the corresponding sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) of the LR-5 and LR-M categories were determined using a random-effect model.

Results

A total of 43 studies were included. The proportion of HCCs in CEUS LR-5 was 96%, and that in CECT/MRI LR-5 was 95% (p > 0.05). The proportion of non-HCC malignancy in CEUS LR-M was lower than that of CT/MRI LR-M (35% vs. 58%, p = 0.01). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS LR-5 for HCCs were 73%, 92%, and 78%, respectively, and of CT/MRI LR-5 for HCCs, 69%, 92%, and 76%, respectively.

Conclusion

With the upshift of the LI-RADS category, the proportion of HCCs increased. CEUS LR-3 has a lower risk of HCCs than CT/MRI LR-3. CEUS LR-5 and CT/MRI LR-5 have a similar diagnostic performance for HCCs. CEUS LR-M has a higher proportion of HCCs and a lower proportion of non-HCC malignancies compared with CT/MRI LR-M.

Performance of LI-RADS Version 2018 on CT for Determining Eligibility for Liver Transplantation According to Milan Criteria in Patients at High Risk for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: LI-RADS has been investigated primarily in terms of detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with less attention given to its performance, particularly on CT, in determining eligibility for liver transplantation (LT). Objectives: To assess performance of LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018) on CT for diagnosis of HCC and determination of LT eligibility according to Milan criteria (MC). Methods: This retrospective study included 136 patients (mean age, 53.9±8.1 years; 110 men, 26 women) at high-risk for HCC who underwent liver-protocol CT within 3 months before LT between January 2010 and December 2018. Two radiologists independently reviewed CT examinations using LI-RADS v2018; OPTN classes were constructed from the LI-RADS interpretations. Histopathologic analysis of liver explants served as reference for determining presence of HCC and LT eligibility based on MC. Diagnostic performance was evaluated. Overall survival (OS) was assessed based on medical record review. Results: Based on histopathologic evaluation of liver explants in the 136 patients, 27 had no malignancy, 77 were eligible for LT due to HCC within MC, and 32 were unsuitable for LT (HCC beyond MC in 16, HCC with macrovascular invasion in 12, non-HCC malignancy in 4). LR-5 exhibited per-lesion sensitivity and PPV for HCC of 55.9% and 92.8% for reader 1, and 39.8% and 86.5% for reader 2. When considering LR-5 observations to represent HCC in assessing MC, LI-RADS had accuracy for determining LT eligibility of 92.7% for reader 1 and 85.3% for reader 2; OPTN had accuracy for determining LT eligibility of 89.0% for reader 1 and 84.4% for reader 2. Five-year OS for those within MC versus unsuitable for LT was 92.2 months versus 56.0 months for LI-RADS, 93.4 months versus 53.8 months for OPTN, and 93.3 months versus 55.1 months for histopathologic assessment of liver explants. Conclusions: LI-RADS v2018, as evaluated on CT in high-risk patients, demonstrates high PPV for HCC detection and high accuracy for determining LT eligibility based on MC. LT eligibility based on preoperative LI-RADS evaluation is associated with post-LT survival. Clinical Impact: These findings support the use of LI-RADS on CT in assessing eligibility in patients who are candidates for LT.

Accuracy of Various Forms of Contrast-Enhanced MRI for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be used to identify patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, studies around the world have found differing diagnostic accuracies for the technique. Hence, we designed this meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI for HCC diagnosis.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search for all studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI for HCC in the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar from inception until January 2021. We used the "Midas" package from the STATA software to perform the meta-analysis.

Results

Our study was based on 21 publications with 5,361 patients. The pooled HCC diagnosis sensitivity and specificity were 75% (95% CI, 70%-80%) and 90% (95% CI, 88%-92%), respectively, for gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI; and they were 70% (95% CI, 57%-81%) and 94% (95% CI, 85%-97%), respectively, for MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI). We found significant heterogeneity with a significant chi-square test and an I ² statistic >75%. We also found significant publication bias as per Deeks' test results and funnel plot.

Conclusion

We found that both types of contrast-enhanced MRI are accurate diagnostic and surveillance tools for HCC and offer high sensitivity and specificity. Further studies on different ethnic populations are required to strengthen our findings.

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.

Liver Transplantation in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond the Milan Criteria: A Comprehensive Review

The Milan criteria (MC) were developed more than 20 years ago and are still considered the benchmark for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the strict application of MC might exclude some patients who may receive a clinical benefit of LT. Several expanded criteria have been proposed. Some of these consider pretransplant morphological and biological variables of the tumor, others consider post-LT variables such as the histology of the tumor, and others combine pre- and post-LT variables. More recently, the HCC response to locoregional treatments before transplantation emerged as a surrogate marker of the biological aggressiveness of the tumor to be used as a better selection criterion for LT in patients beyond the MC at presentation. This essential review aims to present the current data on the pretransplant selection criteria for LT in patients with HCC exceeding the MC at presentation based on morphological and histological characteristics of the tumor and to critically discuss those that have been validated in clinical practice. Moreover, the role of HCC biological markers and the tumor response to downstaging procedures as new tools for selecting patients with a tumor burden outside of the MC for LT is evaluated.

Diagnostic Performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2017 Versus Version 2018 for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing liver imaging in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

PURPOSE

To systematically compare the performance of computed tomography (CT)/MRI LI-RADS category 5 (LR-5) for diagnosing HCC between versions 2017 and 2018.

STUDY TYPE

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SUBJECTS

Six articles with 1181 lesions.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

1.5 T and 3.0 T.

ASSESSMENT

Data extraction was independently performed by two reviewers who identified and reviewed articles comparing the performance of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC between CT/MRI LI-RADS versions 2017 and 2018. Study and patient characteristics, index test characteristics, reference standards, and study outcomes were extracted from included studies. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Bivariate random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 using both versions. The summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore heterogeneity. A P-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant for all analyses other than heterogeneity, where the significance threshold was 0.1.

RESULTS

The pooled per-observation sensitivity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC did not show statistically significant difference between versions 2017 (60%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 49%-70%) and 2018 (67%; 95% CI, 56%-76%; P = 0.381). The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 were not significantly different between versions 2017 (92%; 95% CI, 90%-95%) and 2018 (91%; 95% CI, 88%-93%; P = 0.332). Meta-regression analyses revealed that the most common underlying liver disease (hepatitis B or hepatitis C) was a significant factor contributing to the heterogeneity of sensitivities among studies for both versions.

DATA CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis using intraindividual paired comparisons, the pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of LR-5 were not significantly different between 2017 and 2018 LI-RADS versions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.