Literature DB >> 24147469

Indeterminate observations (liver imaging reporting and data system category 3) on MRI in the cirrhotic liver: fate and clinical implications.

Jin-Young Choi1, Hyun Cheol Cho, Mark Sun, Hyeon Chang Kim, Claude B Sirlin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to retrospectively evaluate the imaging characteristics and outcomes of indeterminate observations (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3) detected on MRI in patients with cirrhosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine indeterminate observations in 52 patients with cirrhosis were imaged with hepatobiliary contrast agent-enhanced MRI. Observations were evaluated retrospectively in terms of the location, size, enhancement pattern, and follow-up results. Each observation was categorized as stable or progressed observations according to serial follow-up MRI.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up interval was 11.2 months. Forty-six (67%) of the total observations showed arterial enhancement, and 23 (33%) observations showed isointense signal or low signal intensity on arterial phase. The indeterminate observations were classified as arterial enhancement with fade-out appearance (41 observations [59%]), arterial enhancement with washout appearance (five observations [7%]), and nonhyperenhancing observations (23 observations [33%]). Two of 69 observations (3%) were hyperintense on T2-weighted images, and four of 55 observations (7%) were hyperintense on hepatocellular phase. On the final follow-up MRI examinations, four (6%) observations proved to be probable or definite hepatocellular carcinoma, 55 (80%) remained stable, and 10 (14%) decreased in size or were no longer visible.
CONCLUSION: The most common cause of indeterminate observations on MRI is hypervascular pseudolesions that were clinically stable on follow-up imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24147469     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.10007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  10 in total

1.  Longitudinal evolution of CT and MRI LI-RADS v2014 category 1, 2, 3, and 4 observations.

Authors:  Cheng William Hong; Charlie C Park; Adrija Mamidipalli; Jonathan C Hooker; Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Saya Igarashi; Mohanad Alhumayed; Yuko Kono; Rohit Loomba; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; Paul Murphy; Claude B Sirlin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Evaluation of LI-RADS 3 category by magnetic resonance in US-detected nodules ≤ 2 cm in cirrhotic patients.

Authors:  Anna Darnell; Jordi Rimola; Ernest Belmonte; Enric Ripoll; Ángeles Garcia-Criado; Carla Caparroz; Álvaro Díaz-González; Ramón Vilana; María Reig; Carmen Ayuso; Jordi Bruix; Alejandro Forner
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Systematic Training of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging v2018 can Improve the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma for Different Radiologists.

Authors:  A-Hong Ren; Hui Xu; Da-Wei Yang; Nan Zhang; Te Ba; Zhen-Chang Wang; Zheng-Han Yang
Journal:  J Clin Transl Hepatol       Date:  2021-07-16

4.  Digital subtract angiography and lipiodol deposits following embolization in cirrhotic nodules of LIRADS category ≥3.

Authors:  Zhen Kang; Nan Wang; Anhui Xu; Liang Wang
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2019-02-23

5.  Genome-wide discovery and validation of diagnostic DNA methylation-based biomarkers for hepatocellular cancer detection in circulating cell free DNA.

Authors:  Ryan A Hlady; Xia Zhao; Xiaoyu Pan; Ju Dong Yang; Fowsiyo Ahmed; Samuel O Antwi; Nasra H Giama; Tushar Patel; Lewis R Roberts; Chen Liu; Keith D Robertson
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 11.556

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

Authors:  Yan Zhou; Zhengyi Qin; Jianmin Ding; Lin Zhao; Ying Chen; Fengmei Wang; Xiang Jing
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 7.  LI-RADS v2017 for liver nodules: how we read and report.

Authors:  Wolfgang Schima; Jay Heiken
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.909

8.  Deep learning LI-RADS grading system based on contrast enhanced multiphase MRI for differentiation between LR-3 and LR-4/LR-5 liver tumors.

Authors:  Yunan Wu; Gregory M White; Tyler Cornelius; Indraneel Gowdar; Mohammad H Ansari; Mark P Supanich; Jie Deng
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-06

9.  Comparison of LI-RADS v.2017 and ESGAR Guidelines Imaging Criteria in HCC Diagnosis Using MRI with Hepatobiliary Contrast Agents.

Authors:  Grzegorz Rosiak; Joanna Podgorska; Edyta Rosiak; Andrzej Cieszanowski
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-07-15       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Hepatocellular carcinoma and mimickers.

Authors:  Yeun-Yoon Kim; Mi-Suk Park; Khalid Suliman Aljoqiman; Jin-Young Choi; Myeong-Jin Kim
Journal:  Clin Mol Hepatol       Date:  2019-01-21
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.