CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS in Association With Serum Biomarkers for Differentiation of Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma From Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The Value of CEUS LI-RADS combined with AFP in early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in low- and high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

We found that the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased significantly in non-cirrhotic individuals, with HCC being frequently overlooked or misdiagnosed. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is known to have a high diagnostic quality in high-risk HCC patients. Therefore, we aimed to compare the detection accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS for HCC between low- and high-risk individuals, to confirm its value in low-risk patients at increased risk of HCC, but not yet included in the high-risk groups of LI-RADS. In addition, since CEUS LR-4 and LR-M categories contain a relatively high proportion of HCC, and serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is the most commonly used biomarker for HCC, and the clinically valid, we attempted to further improve the early diagnostic capability of CEUS LI-RADS for HCC in the low-risk and high-risk patients by combining CEUS LR-4 and LR-M categories with AFP.

METHODS

We defined high-risk groups (HR)-included in the high-risk patients of LI-RADS, low-risk groups (LR)-not included in the high-risk patients of LI-RADS and enrolled 189 HCC patients with LR and HR settings in a retrospective study. All lesions were confirmed histopathologically. The CEUS LI-RADS accuracy for detecting HCC in these two patients was compared. In addition, the diagnostic algorithm in our study was proposed (for CEUS LR-4 and LR-M patients with AFP>20 ng/ml). we analyzed the ability of CEUS LI-RADS as a valid method of establishing the early diagnosis of HCC in LR and HR patients by combining LR-4 and LR-M categories with AFP.

RESULTS

Through comparative analysis, the specificity of the CEUS LR-5 category for HCC in the HR group was 78.4%, whereas in the LR group, it was 94.2%. Meanwhile, the sensitivity (63.2% vs. 63.0%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (75.0% vs. 88.7%) did not differ between the LR and HR groups ( P = 0.990, P = 0.299). It is noteworthy that there were the high proportion of HCC in CEUS LR-4 and LR-M categories in our cases and when we combined CEUS LR-4 and LR-M categories with AFP significantly improved the sensitivity by 21.0% (84.2%) in the LR group, and by 16.0% (79.0%) in the HR group, with statistically difference in sensitivity after combination in the HR group ( P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The CEUS LR-5 category has real meaningful utility in the diagnosis of HCC in both LR and HR patients. The early detection power of the CEUS LI-RADS category for HCC patients was further increased when the CEUS LR-4 and LR-M categories were combined with elevated AFP.

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.

Differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by ultrasonography combined with multiphase enhanced computed tomography

Purpose: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are primary liver cancers with different therapeutic methods and prognoses. This study aims to investigate the ultrasonography and enhanced computed tomography (CT) features of these cancers and improve the early diagnosis rate. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and imaging data of 319 patients diagnosed with HCC and 124 patients diagnosed with ICC, confirmed by pathology. Results: A total of 443 patients were eligible in this study. From the perspective of clinical data, between HCC and ICC patients existed significant differences in age, gender, hepatic background, serum tumor markers of AFP and CA19.9, chronic hepatitis B/C and lymph node infiltration (p<0.05), but not in tumor size, microvascular invasion, serum tumor markers of CEA and CA125 (P>0.05). With respect to ultrasonography features, HCC patients had a higher proportion than ICC patients in splenomegaly (p=0.001), while ICC patients had a higher proportion than HCC patients in absence/not rich vascularity and intrahepatic bile duct dilatation (p<0.05). With respect to CT features, HCC patients were significantly different from ICC patients in the three-phase enhanced CT value mean, enhanced intensity and homogeneity of nodules (P<0.05). A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to further clarify the correlation of these indices. However, only age≤60 years (OR=1.861, P=0.045), male (OR=3.850, P<0.001), AFP>7ng/ml (OR=0.119, P<0.001), lymph node infiltration (OR=5.968, P<0.001), intrahepatic bile duct dilatation (OR=2.414, P=0.04), splenomegaly (OR=0.081, P<0.001), rim APHE (OR=3.109, P=0.002), and iso- or hyper enhancement (OR=0.188, P<0.001) were independent risk factors. Conclusions: While there are overlapping ultrasonography and CT features between HCC and ICC, the integration of tumor markers and specific imaging characteristics can be beneficial in distinguishing between the two.

Comparison contrast-enhanced CT with contrast-enhanced US in diagnosing combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

OBJECTIVES

To develop and compare noninvasive models for differentiating between combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) and HCC based on serum tumor markers, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and computed tomography (CECT).

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2021, patients with pathologically confirmed cHCC-CCA or HCC who underwent both preoperative CEUS and CECT were retrospectively enrolled. Propensity scores were calculated to match cHCC-CCA and HCC patients with a near-neighbor ratio of 1:2. Two predicted models, a CEUS-predominant (CEUS features plus tumor markers) and a CECT-predominant model (CECT features plus tumor markers), were constructed using logistic regression analyses. Model performance was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients (mean age, 51.3 years ± 10.9; 122 men) with 135 tumors (45 cHCC-CCA and 90 HCC) were included. By logistic regression analysis, unclear boundary in the intratumoral nonenhanced area, partial washout on CEUS, CA 19-9 > 100 U/mL, lack of cirrhosis, incomplete tumor capsule, and nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) volume < 50% on CECT were independent factors for a diagnosis of cHCC-CCA. The CECT-predominant model showed almost perfect sensitivity for cHCC-CCA, unlike the CEUS-predominant model (93.3% vs. 55.6%, p < 0.001). The CEUS-predominant model showed higher diagnostic specificity than the CECT-predominant model (80.0% vs. 63.3%; p = 0.020), especially in the ≤ 5 cm subgroup (92.0% vs. 70.0%; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The CECT-predominant model provides higher diagnostic sensitivity than the CEUS-predominant model for CHCC-CCA. Combining CECT features with serum CA 19-9 > 100 U/mL shows excellent sensitivity.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Combining lack of cirrhosis, incomplete tumor capsule, and nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) volume < 50% on CECT with serum CA 19-9 > 100 U/mL shows excellent sensitivity in differentiating cHCC-CCA from HCC.

KEY POINTS

1. Accurate differentiation between cHCC-CCA and HCC is essential for treatment decisions. 2. The CECT-predominant model provides higher accuracy than the CEUS-predominant model for CHCC-CCA. 3. Combining CECT features and CA 19-9 levels shows a sensitivity of 93.3% in diagnosing cHCC-CCA.

Update on the Applications of Radiomics in Diagnosis, Staging, and Recurrence of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

This paper offers an assessment of radiomics tools in the evaluation of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for papers published in the English language no earlier than October 2022.

RESULTS

We found 236 studies, and 37 satisfied our research criteria. Several studies addressed multidisciplinary topics, especially diagnosis, prognosis, response to therapy, and prediction of staging (TNM) or pathomorphological patterns. In this review, we have covered diagnostic tools developed through machine learning, deep learning, and neural network for the recurrence and prediction of biological characteristics. The majority of the studies were retrospective.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to conclude that many performing models have been developed to make differential diagnosis easier for radiologists to predict recurrence and genomic patterns. However, all the studies were retrospective, lacking further external validation in prospective and multicentric cohorts. Furthermore, the radiomics models and the expression of results should be standardized and automatized to be applicable in clinical practice.

Combining serum AFP and CEUS LI-RADS for better diagnostic performance in Chinese high-risk patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of revised contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version by combining LR-M category and serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) under different cut-off values.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 152 high-risk patients with 152 histology-proven nodules. For revised LI-RADS, nodules in LR-M with different elevated AFP thresholds have been reclassified as the LR-5 category. The diagnostic performances of original and revised CEUS LI-RADS were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

To compare with the original version, the sensitivity of revised LR-5 (adjusted with AFP value > 200 ng/ml or 400 ng/ml) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) improved from 52.5 to 69.2% or 65.0%, respectively (both p < 0.001) without compromising specificity (87.5% vs. 71.9% or 78.1%, respectively, both p > 0.05). For the diagnosis of non-HCC malignancy, the specificity of the LR-M after reclassification was improved (69.6% vs. 84.4% or 80.7%, respectively, both p < 0.001) with a non-significant sensitivity reduction (100.0 vs. 70.6% or 82.4%, respectively, both p > 0.05). After modification, the sensitivity of LR-5 also increased to 69.1% or 64.9% (both p < 0.001), while the specificity and PPV did not change (both p > 0.05) for larger nodules (> 20 mm).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of CEUS LI-RADS can be further improved by reclassifying LR-M nodules with elevated AFP thresholds to LR-5.

Quantitative Assessment of Hypovascular Component in Arterial Phase to Help the Discrimination of Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Purpose

To explore the imaging performance for discrimination of combined hepatocellular- cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

In total, 35 patients with cHCC-CCA and a matched control group of HCC patients (n = 35) were included retrospectively. We quantitatively evaluated the hypovascular component in tumor and qualitatively assessed LI-RADS features and other aggressive features to develop model for cHCC-CCA diagnose. Subgroup analyses were performed by tumor size and LI-RADS category.

Results

cHCC-CCA frequently showed a larger proportion (≥50%) of hypovascular areas followed by HCC (P = 0.000). Among those patients with ≥50% hypovascular areas, 8 patients did not present rim enhancement in atrial phase. The LI-RADS major features were more commonly observed in HCC (82.9-45.7%,), than cHCC-CCA (P = 0.003-0.022). The targetoid appearances and non-smooth margin frequently appeared in cHCC-CCA (34.3-63.9%), compared with HCC (P = 0.000-0.023). We developed a radiologic model based on ≥50% hypovascular component and delayed enhancement, which presented AUC of 0.821, accuracy of 80%. We also obtained good performance by radiologic model in LR-M group and tumor size <50mm group (AUC: 0.841 and 0.866, respectively). Combined group which included CA 19-9 and ≥50% hypovascular component and delayed enhancement did not improve the distinction performance between cHCC-CCA and HCC, which presented good performance of identifying cHCC-CCA in the LR-4/5 subgroup and tumor size ≥50 mm subgroup (AUC: 0.717, 0.730, respectively). cHCC-CCA group presented heterogeneous dominant pathology involving 15 of HCC, 7 of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) or cholangiolocellular carcinoma (CLC), 13 of intermediate cells component. Macrotrabecular appearances were higher in cHCC-CCA than that in HCC. The proportion of Hepa-1 was significantly higher in true negative (TN) patients (29 [93.5%]) and false negative (FN) patients (10 [100%]) than in true positive (TP) patients (16 [64%]; P = 0.036).

Conclusion

Quantitative assessment of hypovascular component could help the discrimination of cHCC-CCA. Macrotrabecular appearances were more exhibited in cHCC-CCA than that in HCC.

Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: An Update on Pathology and Diagnostic Approach

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is a rare primary liver carcinoma displaying both hepatocytic and cholangiocytic differentiation within the same tumor. Relative to classic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cHCC-CCA has more aggressive behavior and a poorer prognosis. Though recent advances have improved our understanding of the biology underlying cHCC-CCAs, they remain diagnostically challenging for pathologists because of their morphologic and phenotypic diversity. Accurate diagnosis of cHCC-CCA is important for patient management and prognostication. Herein, we review recent updates on cHCC-CCA, focusing on tumor classification, pathology, and diagnostic approach.