Common pitfalls when using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS): lessons learned from a multi-year experience
The goal of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is to standardize the interpretation and reporting of liver observations on contrast-enhanced CT and MR imaging of patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Although LI-RADS represents a significant achievement in standardization of the diagnosis and management of cirrhotic patients, complexity and caveats to the algorithm may challenge correct application in clinical practice. The purpose of this paper is to discuss common pitfalls and potential solutions when applying LI-RADS in practice. Knowledge of the most common pitfalls may improve the diagnostic confidence and performance when using the LI-RADS system for the interpretation of CT and MR imaging of the liver.
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinoma Multidetector computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was received for this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Alessandro Furlan: research grant from General Electric; consultant for General Electric; book contract with Elsevier/Amirsys. Amir A. Borhani: consultant for Guebert; consultant for Elsevier/Amirsys.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.
- 2.American College of Radiology. Liver imaging reporting and data system. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS. Accessed July 2018.
- 19.Korean Liver Cancer Study Group (KLCSG), National Cancer Center, Korea (NCC) (2015) 2014 KLCSG-NCC Korea Practice Guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut Liver 9:267–317Google Scholar
- 31.Ciresa M, De Gaetano AM, Pompili M, et al. (2015) Enhancement patterns of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma at multiphasic computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging and correlation with clinicopathologic features. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 19:2786–2797Google Scholar