LI-RADS for CT diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: performance of major and ancillary features
- 252 Downloads
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2017 major features, the impact of ancillary features, and categories on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
Materials and methods
This retrospective study included 59 patients (104 observations including 72 HCCs) with clinical suspicion of HCC undergoing CECT between 2013 and 2016. Two radiologists independently assessed major and ancillary imaging features for each liver observation and assigned a LI-RADS category based on major features only and in combination with ancillary features. The composite reference standard included pathology or imaging. Per-lesion estimates of diagnostic performance of major features, ancillary features, and LI-RADS categories were assessed by generalized estimating equation models.
Major features (arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout, capsule, and threshold growth) respectively had a sensitivity of 86.1%, 81.6%, 20.7%, and 26.1% and specificity of 39.3%, 67.9%, 89.9%, and 85.0% for HCC. Ancillary features (ultrasound visibility as discrete nodule, subthreshold growth, and fat in mass more than adjacent liver) respectively had a sensitivity of 42.6%, 50.8%, and 15.1% and a specificity of 79.2%, 66.9%, and 96.4% for HCC. Ancillary features modified the final category in 4 of 104 observations. For HCC diagnosis, categories LR-3, LR-4, LR-5, and LR-TIV (tumor in vein) had a sensitivity of 5.3%, 29.0%, 53.7%, and 10.7%; and a specificity of 49.1%, 84.4%, 97.3%, and 96.4%, respectively.
On CT, LR-5 category has near-perfect specificity for the diagnosis of HCC and ancillary features modifies the final category in few observations.
Key wordsLI-RADS Hepatocellular carcinoma Major features Ancillary features Category CT
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Ayman Alhasan, Milena Cerny, Damien Olivié, Jean-Sébastien Billiard, Catherine Bergeron, Kip Brown, Paule Bodson-Clermont, Hélène Castel, Simon Turcotte, Pierre Perreault and An Tang declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was waived from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.American College of Radiology. (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2017. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS. Accessed April 20, 2018
- 8.Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. (2018) OPTN/UNOS policy 9: allocation of livers and liver-intestines. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/1200/optn_policies.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2018
- 9.Fowler KJ, Tang A, Santillan C, et al. (2018) Interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2014 algorithm and imaging features for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a large international multireader study. Radiology 286(1):173–185. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170376 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fraum TJ, Tsai R, Rohe E, et al. (2018) Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from other hepatic malignancies in patients at risk: diagnostic performance of the liver imaging reporting and data system version 2014. Radiology 286(1):158–172. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170114 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cerny M, Bergeron C, Billiard JS, Murphy-Lavallee J, Olivie D, Berube J, Fan B, Castel H, Turcotte S, Perreault P, Chagnon M, Tang A (2018) LI-RADS for MR imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: performance of major and ancillary features. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018171678
- 12.Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, et al. (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system v2014 categorization of hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: comparison with multiphasic multidetector computed tomography. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(3):731–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25406 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Oliver JH 3rd, Baron RL, Federle MP, Rockette HE Jr (1996) Detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: value of unenhanced or arterial phase CT imaging or both used in conjunction with conventional portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167(1):71–77. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.1.8659425 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Serste T, Barrau V, Ozenne V, et al. (2012) Accuracy and disagreement of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma and dysplastic nodules: role of biopsy. Hepatology 55(3):800–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24746 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Jang HJ, Kim TK, Khalili K, et al. (2013) Characterization of 1-to 2-cm liver nodules detected on hcc surveillance ultrasound according to the criteria of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease: is quadriphasic CT necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(2):314–321. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9341 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Khan AS, Hussain HK, Johnson TD, et al. (2010) Value of delayed hypointensity and delayed enhancing rim in magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 32(2):360–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22271 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.An C, Park MS, Kim D, et al. (2013) Added value of subtraction imaging in detecting arterial enhancement in small (< 3 cm) hepatic nodules on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 23(4):924–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2685-x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X, et al. (2016) Classifying CT/MR findings in patients with suspicion of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of liver imaging reporting and data system and criteria-free Likert scale reporting models. J Magn Reson Imaging 43(2):373–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24987 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Bashir MR, Huang R, Mayes N, et al. (2015) Concordance of hypervascular liver nodule characterization between the organ procurement and transplant network and liver imaging reporting and data system classifications. J Magn Reson Imaging 42(2):305–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24793 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Denecke T, Grieser C, Froling V, et al. (2009) Multislice computed tomography using a triple-phase contrast protocol for preoperative assessment of hepatic tumor load in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation. Transpl Int 22(4):395–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00793.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar