Intraindividual Comparison between Gadoxetate-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Dynamic Computed Tomography for Characterizing Focal Hepatic Lesions: A Multicenter, Multireader Study

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.

Diagnostic Values of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in the Detection and Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This review was undertaken to assess the diagnostic value of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in patients with a high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PROQUEST, and Cochrane Library, as the international databases, were searched with appropriate keywords. Using the binomial distribution formula, the variance of all studies was calculated, and using Stata version 16 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA), the obtained data were analyzed. Using a random-effect meta-analysis approach, we determined the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Utilizing the funnel plot and Begg's and Egger's tests, we assessed publication bias. The results exhibited pooled sensitivity and pooled specificity of 0.80% and 0.89%, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.76-0.84 and 0.87-0.92, respectively. The 2018 version of LI-RADS showed the greatest sensitivity (0.83%; 95% CI 0.79-0.87; I ² = 80.6%; P < 0.001 for heterogeneity; T ² = 0.001). The maximum pooled specificity was detected in LI-RADS version 2014 (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA, USA; 93.0%; 95% CI 89.0-96.0; I ² = 81.7%; P < 0.001 for heterogeneity; T ² = 0.001). In this review, the results of estimated sensitivity and specificity were satisfactory. Therefore, this strategy can serve as an appropriate tool for identifying HCC.

Percentages of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in LI-RADS Categories with CT and MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) CT and MRI algorithm applies equally to CT, MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECA-MRI), and MRI with gadoxetate (Gx-MRI). Purpose To estimate pooled percentages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and overall malignancy for each LI-RADS category with CT and MRI. Materials and Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for research articles (January 2014-April 2021) reporting the percentages of observations in each LI-RADS category with use of versions 2014, 2017, or 2018. Study design, population characteristics, imaging modality, reference standard, and numbers of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in each category were recorded. A random-effects model evaluated the pooled percentage of HCC and overall malignancy for each category. Results There were 49 studies with 9620 patients and a total 11 562 observations, comprising 7921 HCCs, 1132 non-HCC malignancies, and 2509 benign entities. No HCC or non-HCC malignancies were reported with any modality in the LR-1 category. The pooled percentages of HCC for CT, ECA-MRI, and Gx-MRI, respectively, were 10%, 6%, and 1% for LR-2 (P = .16); 48%, 31%, and 38% for LR-3 (P = .42); 76%, 64%, and 77% for LR-4 (P = .62); 96%, 95%, and 96% for LR-5 (P = .76); 88%, 76%, and 78% for LR-5V or LR-TIV (tumor in vein) (P = .42); and 20%, 30%, and 35% for LR-M (P = .32). Most LR-M (93%-100%) and LR-5V or LR-TIV (99%-100%) observations were malignant, regardless of modality. Conclusion There was no difference in percentages of hepatocellular carcinoma and overall malignancy between CT, MRI with extracellular contrast agents, and MRI with gadoxetate for any Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System categories. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article See also the editorial by Ronot in this issue.

Diagnostic performance of CT versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 (LR-5) for diagnosing HCC between CT and MRI using comparative studies.

METHODS

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to April 21, 2021, to identify studies that directly compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 for HCC between CT and MRI. A bivariate random-effects model was fitted to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 of each modality, and compare the pooled estimates of paired data. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the MRI contrast agent.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1145 observations (725 HCCs) were included in the final analysis. The pooled per-observation sensitivity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC was higher using MRI (61%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43-76%; I² = 95%) than CT (48%; 95% CI, 31-65%; I² = 97%) (p < 0.001). The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 did not show statistically significant difference between CT (96%; 95% CI, 92-98%; I² = 0%) and MRI (93%; 95% CI, 88-96%; I² = 16%) (p = 0.054). In the subgroup analysis, extracellular contrast agent-enhanced MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for diagnosing HCC (73% [95% CI, 55-85%] vs. 55% [95% CI, 39-70%]; p = 0.007), without a significant difference in specificity (93% [95% CI, 80-98%] vs. 94% [95% CI, 87-97%]; p = 0.884).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-5 of MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than CT for diagnosing HCC. The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 were comparable between the two modalities.

KEY POINTS

• The pooled sensitivity of LR-5 using MRI was higher than that using CT (61% versus 48%), but the pooled specificities of LR-5 were not significantly different between CT and MRI (96% versus 93%). • Subgroup analysis according to the MRI contrast media showed a significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity using ECA-enhanced MRI than with EOB-enhanced MRI (73% versus 55%), and comparable specificities (93% versus 94%). • Although LI-RADS provides a common diagnostic algorithm for CT or MRI, the per-observation performance of LR-5 can be affected by the imaging modality as well as the MRI contrast agent.

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.

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.

Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: What the Multidisciplinary Team Should Know

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is a rare type of primary liver malignancy. Among the risk factors, hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infections, cirrhosis, and male gender are widely reported. The clinical appearance of cHCC-CCA is similar to that of HCC and iCCA and it is usually silent until advanced states, causing a delay of diagnosis. Diagnosis is mainly based on histology from biopsies or surgical specimens. Correct pre-surgical diagnosis during imaging studies is very problematic and is due to the heterogeneous characteristics of the lesion in imaging, with overlapping features of HCC and CCA. The predominant histological subtype within the lesion establishes the predominant imaging findings. Therefore, in this scenario, the radiological findings characteristic of HCC show an overlap with those of CCA. Since cHCC-CCAs are prevalent in patients at high risk of HCC and there is a risk that these may mimic HCC, it is currently difficult to see a non-invasive diagnosis of HCC. Surgery is the only curative treatment of HCC-CCA. The role of liver transplantation (LT) in the treatment of cHCC-CCA remains controversial, as is the role of ablative or systemic therapies in the treatment of this tumour. These lesions still remain challenging, both in diagnosis and in the treatment phase. Therefore, a pre-treatment imaging diagnosis is essential, as well as the identification of prognostic factors that could stratify the risk of recurrence and the most adequate therapy according to patient characteristics.

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.

Do transition and hepatobiliary phase hypointensity improve LI-RADS categorization as an alternative washout: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The definition of washout in gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB-MRI) is controversial. The current Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) defines washout only in the portal venous phase on Gd-EOB-MRI, leading to low diagnostic sensitivity for HCC. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of Gd-EOB-MRI using conventional (cWO) and modified (mWO) definitions of washout.

METHODS

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published between January 1, 2010, and August 1, 2021, that compared the diagnostic performance of cWO and mWO for HCC. The mWOs added transition phase (TP) hypointensity (mWO-1), hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity (mWO-2), or both (mWO-3). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Study heterogeneity was explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis.

RESULTS

Ten comparative studies with 2391 patients were included. Compared to cWO, the overall mWO yielded significantly higher sensitivity (71% vs. 81%, p = 0.00) and lower specificity (97% vs. 93%, p = 0.01) for diagnosing HCC. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.90 and 0.94 for the cWO and mWO, respectively. Regarding the three types of mWOs, mWO-2 showed the highest sensitivity (85%) and specificity (96%) for diagnosing HCC. mWO-2 achieved the highest AUC (0.97), followed by mWO-1 (0.90), and mWO-3 (0.89). Average reviewer experience and scanner field strength were significantly associated with study heterogeneity (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of TP and HBP hypointensity in the definition of washout improved the sensitivity with slightly lower specificity for diagnosing HCC in LI-RADS.

KEY POINTS

• Compared to the conventional definition of washout, studies using a modified definition had higher sensitivity (71% vs. 81%) but lower specificity (97% vs. 93%) in LI-RADS for the diagnosis of HCC. • Hepatobiliary phase hypointensity may be a preferred alternative washout for HCC diagnosis with the highest area under the curve. • Studies with experienced reviewer or 3.0T MRI showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity for diagnosing HCC when using modified washout (p < 0.05).

MRI-diagnosis of category LR-M observations in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We performed a meta-analysis to determine the probability of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and non-HCC malignancies in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) observations and the frequency of defined LR-M imaging features on MRI using LI-RADS v2018.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify studies published from 1 January 2018 to 16 March 2021 reporting the probability of category LR-M in HCC and non-HCC malignancies on MRI. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in the LR-M observations were evaluated. Meta-regression analysis was performed to identify factors for study heterogeneity. The frequencies of defined LR-M imaging features were also calculated. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies reporting the diagnostic performance of the LR-M category (3,812 observations in 3,615 patients), with nine studies reporting the frequencies of LR-M imaging features. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancies in the LR-M observations were 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21-38%) and 67% (95%CI, 57-77%), respectively. The study type and inclusion of benign lesions were significant factors for study heterogeneity. Of the 10 LR-M imaging features, rim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) showed the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies (68%; 95%CI, 61-75%).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-M category was commonly used to characterize non-HCC malignancies, but also included 29% of HCC. The frequencies of the different LR-M imaging features were variable, with rim APHE showing the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies.

KEY POINTS

• In the LR-M category using LI-RADS v2018 for MRI, the pooled percentage of malignancies in general was 96%, with 29% HCC and 67% non-HCC malignancies, while the remaining 4% was benign entity. • The study type and inclusion of benign lesions were significant factors contributing to substantial heterogeneity among included studies. • The frequencies of the different LR-M imaging features were variable, with rim APHE showing the highest frequency in non-HCC malignancies.

Computed tomography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma occurs mostly in people with chronic liver disease and ranks sixth in terms of global incidence of cancer, and fourth in terms of cancer deaths. In clinical practice, computed tomography (CT) is used as a second-line diagnostic imaging modality to confirm the presence of focal liver lesions suspected as hepatocellular carcinoma on prior diagnostic test such as abdominal ultrasound or alpha-foetoprotein, or both, either in surveillance programmes or in clinical settings. According to current guidelines, a single contrast-enhanced imaging study CT or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showing typical hallmarks of hepatocellular carcinoma in people with cirrhosis is valid to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. However, a significant number of hepatocellular carcinomas do not show typical hallmarks on imaging modalities, and hepatocellular carcinoma is, therefore, missed. There is no clear evidence of the benefit of surveillance programmes in terms of overall survival: the conflicting results can be a consequence of inaccurate detection, ineffective treatment, or both. Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT may clarify whether the absence of benefit could be related to underdiagnosis. Furthermore, an assessment of the accuracy of CT in people with chronic liver disease, who are not included in surveillance programmes is needed for either ruling out or diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multidetector, multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and at any stage in adults with chronic liver disease, either in a surveillance programme or in a clinical setting. Secondary: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT for the diagnosis of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Trials Register, Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Diagnostic-Test-Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until 4 May 2021. We applied no language or document-type restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, with cross-sectional designs, using one of the acceptable reference standards, such as pathology of the explanted liver and histology of resected or biopsied focal liver lesion with at least a six-month follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns, using the QUADAS-2 checklist. We presented the results of sensitivity and specificity, using paired forest plots, and tabulated the results. We used a hierarchical meta-analysis model where appropriate. We presented uncertainty of the accuracy estimates using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We double-checked all data extractions and analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies, with a total of 3101 participants. We judged all studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain because most studies used different reference standards, often inappropriate to exclude the presence of the target condition, and the time-interval between the index test and the reference standard was rarely defined. Regarding applicability in the patient selection domain, we judged 14% (3/21) of studies to be at low concern and 86% (18/21) of studies to be at high concern owing to characteristics of the participants who were on waiting lists for orthotopic liver transplantation. CT for hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage: sensitivity 77.5% (95% CI 70.9% to 82.9%) and specificity 91.3% (95% CI 86.5% to 94.5%) (21 studies, 3101 participants; low-certainty evidence). CT for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: sensitivity 71.4% (95% CI 60.3% to 80.4%) and specificity 92.0% (95% CI 86.3% to 95.5%) (10 studies, 1854 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the three studies at low concern for applicability (861 participants), we found sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI 50.8% to 91.5%) and specificity 89.2% (95% CI 57.0% to 98.1%). The observed heterogeneity in the results remains mostly unexplained. The sensitivity analyses, which included only studies with clearly prespecified positivity criteria and only studies in which the reference standard results were interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index test, showed no variation in the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease, CT has roles as a confirmatory test for hepatocellular carcinoma lesions, and for staging assessment. We found that using CT in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma of any size and stage, 22.5% of people with hepatocellular carcinoma would be missed, and 8.7% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would be unnecessarily treated. For resectable hepatocellular carcinoma, we found that 28.6% of people with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma would improperly not be resected, while 8% of people without hepatocellular carcinoma would undergo inappropriate surgery. The uncertainty resulting from the high risk of bias in the included studies and concerns regarding their applicability limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Diagnostic evaluation and ablation treatments assessment in hepatocellular carcinoma

This article provides an overview of diagnostic evaluation and ablation treatment assessment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). Only studies, in the English language from January 2010 to January 202, evaluating the diagnostic tools and assessment of ablative therapies in HCC patients were included. We found 173 clinical studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria.HCC may be noninvasively diagnosed by imaging findings. Multiphase contrast-enhanced imaging is necessary to assess HCC. Intravenous extracellular contrast agents are used for CT, while the agents used for MRI may be extracellular or hepatobiliary. Both gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine may be used in hepatobiliary phase imaging. For treatment-naive patients undergoing CT, unenhanced imaging is optional; however, it is required in the post treatment setting for CT and all MRI studies. Late arterial phase is strongly preferred over early arterial phase. The choice of modality (CT, US/CEUS or MRI) and MRI contrast agent (extracelllar or hepatobiliary) depends on patient, institutional, and regional factors. MRI allows to link morfological and functional data in the HCC evaluation. Also, Radiomics is an emerging field in the assessment of HCC patients.Postablation imaging is necessary to assess the treatment results, to monitor evolution of the ablated tissue over time, and to evaluate for complications. Post- thermal treatments, imaging should be performed at regularly scheduled intervals to assess treatment response and to evaluate for new lesions and potential complications.

Enhancing capsule in hepatocellular carcinoma: intra-individual comparison between CT and MRI with extracellular contrast agent

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) to that of magnetic resonance imaging obtained with extracellular contrast agent (ECA-MRI) for the diagnosis of a tumor capsule in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using histopathologic findings as the standard of reference.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with pathologically-proven resected HCCs with available preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and ECA-MRI examinations. Two blinded radiologists independently reviewed contrast-enhanced CT and ECA-MRI examinations to assess the presence of an enhancing capsule. The histopathological analysis of resected specimens was used as reference for the diagnosis of a tumor capsule. The sensitivity and specificity of CT and ECA-MRI for the diagnosis of a tumor capsule were determined, and an intra-individual comparison of imaging modalities was performed using McNemar test. Inter-reader agreement was assessed using Kappa test.

RESULTS

The study population included 199 patients (157 men, 42 women; mean age: 61.3 ± 13.0 [SD] years) with 210 HCCs (mean size 56.7 ± 43.7 [SD] mm). A tumor capsule was present in 157/210 (74.8%) HCCs at histopathologic analysis. Capsule enhancement was more frequently visualized on ECA-MRI (R1, 68.6%; R2, 71.9%) than on CT (R1, 44.3%, P < 0.001; R2, 47.6%, P < 0.001). The sensitivity of ECA-MRI was better for the diagnosis of histopathological tumor capsule (R1, 76.4%; R2, 79.6%; P < 0.001), while CT had a greater specificity (R1, 84.9%; R2, 83.0%; P < 0.001). Inter-reader agreement was moderate both on CT (kappa = 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.66) and ECA-MRI (kappa = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45-0.70).

CONCLUSION

Capsule enhancement was more frequently visualized on ECA-MRI than on CT. The sensitivity of ECA-MRI was greater than that of CT, but the specificity of CT was better than that of ECA-MRI.

Up-to-Date Role of CT/MRI LI-RADS in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and a major healthcare burden in most societies. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) play a pivotal role in the medical care of patients with or at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). When stringent imaging criteria are fulfilled, CT and MRI allow for diagnosis, staging, and assessment of response to treatment, without the need for invasive workup, and can inform clinical decision making. Owing to the central role of these imaging modalities in HCC management, standardization is essential to facilitate proper imaging technique, accurate interpretation, and clear communication among all stakeholders in both the clinical practice and research settings. The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system that provides standardization across the continuum of HCC imaging, including ordinal probabilistic approach for reporting that directs individualized management. This review discusses the up-to-date role of CT and MRI in HCC imaging from the LI-RADS perspective. It also provides a glimpse into the future by discussing how advances in knowledge and technology are likely to enrich the LI-RADS approach.

Diagnosis of Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Malignancies in Patients With Risks for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: CEUS LI-RADS Versus CT/MRI LI-RADS

Objective

Data regarding direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CT/MR) LI-RADS in diagnosis of non-hepatocelluar carcinoma (non-HCC) malignancies remain limited. Our study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the CEUS LI-RADS version 2017 and CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 for diagnosing non-HCC malignancies in patients with risks for HCC.

Materials and Methods

In this retrospective study, 94 liver nodules pathologically-confirmed as non-HCC malignancies in 92 patients at risks for HCC from January 2009 to December 2018 were enrolled. The imaging features and the LI-RADS categories on corresponding CEUS and CT/MRI within 1 month were retrospectively analyzed according to the ACR CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and ACR CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 by two radiologists in consensus for each algorithm. The sensitivity of LR-M category, inter-reader agreement and inter-modality agreement was compared between these two standardized algorithms.

Results

Ninety-four nodules in 92 patients (mean age, 54 years ± 10 [standard deviation] with 65 men [54 years ± 11] and 27 women [54 years ± 8]), including 56 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, 34 combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinomas, two adenosquamous carcinomas of the liver, one primary hepatic neuroendocrine carcinoma and one hepatic undifferentiated sarcoma were included. On CEUS, numbers of lesions classified as LR-3, LR-4, LR-5 and LR-M were 0, 1, 10 and 83, and on CT/MRI, the corresponding numbers were 3, 0, 14 and 77. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity of LR-M between these two standardized algorithms (88.3% of CEUS vs 81.9% of CT/MRI, p = 0.210). Seventy-seven lesions (81.9%) were classified as the same LI-RADS categories by both standardized algorithms (five for LR-5 and 72 for LR-M, kappa value = 0.307). In the subgroup analysis for ICC and CHC, no significant differences were found in the sensitivity of LR-M category between these two standardized algorithms (for ICC, 94.6% of CEUS vs 89.3% of CT/MRI, p = 0.375; for CHC, 76.5% of CEUS vs 70.6% of CT/MRI, p = 0. 649).

Conclusion

CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 showed similar value for diagnosing non-HCC primary hepatic malignancies in patients with risks.

Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing liver imaging in patients at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS category 5 (LR5) for diagnosing HCC and LI-RADS category M (LRM) for characterizing other non-HCC malignancies (OM) using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Multiple databases were searched for articles evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS and/or CT/MRI LI-RADS. A random-effects model was adopted to synthesize the summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of LR5 for diagnosing HCC and LRM for characterizing OM using CEUS and CT/MRI. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS LR5 for the diagnosis of HCC were 69% and 93%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 67% and the specificity, 93% of CT/MRI LR5 for HCC diagnosis. There was no significant difference between the overall diagnostic accuracy for HCC diagnosis of CEUS LR5 and that of CT/MRI LR5 in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (p = 0.55). The sensitivity was 84% with a specificity of 90% in the CEUS LRM for characterizing OM, while the sensitivity and specificity of CT/MRI LRM for characterizing OM was 63% and 95%. The DOR of CEUS LRM for characterizing OM was higher than that of CT/MRI LRM without significant difference (50.59 vs. 36.06, p = 0.34). This meta-analysis indicated that CEUS LI-RADS is qualified to characterize HCC and OM and may provide complementary information on liver nodules to CT/MRI LI-RADS.

Current status of image-based surveillance in hepatocellular carcinoma

Although the overall prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains poor, curative treatment may improve the survival of patients diagnosed at an early stage through surveillance. Accordingly, ultrasonography (US)-based HCC surveillance programs proposed in international society guidelines are now being implemented and regularly updated based on the latest evidence to improve their efficacy. Recently, other imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging have shown potential as alternative surveillance tools based on individualized risk stratification. In this review article, we describe the current status of US-based surveillance for HCC and summarize the supporting evidence. We also discuss alternative surveillance imaging modalities that are currently being studied to validate their diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness.

Liver imaging reporting and data system category M: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) was introduced to preserve the high specificity of LI-RADS algorithm for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to systematically determine the probability of the LR-M for HCC and non-HCC malignancy, and to determine the sources of heterogeneity between reported results.

METHODS

Original studies reporting the probability of LR-M for HCC and non-HCC malignancy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The meta-analytic pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC in LR-M were calculated. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore study heterogeneity. The meta-analytic frequency of each LR-M imaging feature was determined.

RESULTS

We found 10 studies reporting the diagnostic performance of LR-M (1819 lesions in 1631 patients), and six reporting the frequency of LR-M imaging features. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancy for LR-M were 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.8%-33.1%; I²  = 83%) and 69.6% (95% CI, 64.6%-74.1%; I²  = 83%) respectively. The study type and MRI scanner field strength were significantly associated with study heterogeneity (P ≤ .04). Of the seven imaging features, rim arterial phase hyperenhancement showed the highest frequency in both non-HCC (48.9%; 95% CI, 43.0%-54.8%) and HCC groups (9.8%; 95% CI, 6.9%-13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The LR-M category most commonly included non-HCC malignancy but also included 28.2% of HCC. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted, and it was significantly associated with study type and MRI scanner field strength. In addition, the frequency of LR-M imaging features was variable.

Performance of LI-RADS version 2018 CT treatment response algorithm in tumor response evaluation and survival prediction of patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation

Background

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System treatment response algorithm (LI-RADS TRA) was developed to evaluate the tumor response of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after locoregional treatments. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of LI-RADS computed tomography (CT) TRA version 2018 in tumor response assessment and survival prediction of patients with single HCC after radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Methods

Forty patients who underwent RFA for single HCC between 2010 and 2016 were included in this retrospective study. The overall survival (OS) data from all the patients after the first therapy was collected. Two readers independently assessed the pretreatment (within 7 d) and posttreatment (within 90 d after RFA) CT manifestations using the LI-RADS version 2018 CT TRA. Inter-reader agreement was assessed. Another radiologist re-evaluated any divergent results and came to the final conclusion. The performance of LI-RADS version 2018 CT TRA for tumor response assessment and predicting survival of patients with single HCC after RFA was evaluated.

Results

Interobserver agreement was moderate between the 2 readers [κ=0.602, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.390–0.814] when using LI-RADS version 2018 TRA to evaluate tumor response for patients with single HCC after RFA. Patients classified as LR-TR viable had significantly lower OS than those classified as LR-TR nonviable (P=0.005) and LR-TR equivocal (P=0.036). However, the OS between LR-TR nonviable and LR-TR equivocal did not differ significantly (P=0.901).

Conclusions

LI-RADS version 2018 CT TRA can be applied to predict viable or nonviable HCC after RFA. Patients with LR-TR viable had significantly lower OS than those with LR-TR nonviable and LR-TR equivocal. More research is needed to validate the performance of LI-RADS version 2018 TRA in HCC tumor response evaluation, to better grasp the use of the tie-breaking rule, and to improve the accuracy of prediction for tumor viability.