PURPOSE: To compare the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and a criteria-free Likert scale (LS) reporting models for classifying computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MR) findings of suspicious hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging data of 281 hepatic nodules in 203 patients were retrospectively included. Imaging characteristics including diameter, arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule were reviewed independently by two groups of readers using LI-RADS and LS (range, score 1-5). LS is primarily based on the overall impression of image findings without using fixed criteria. Interreader agreement (IRA), intraclass agreement (ICA), and diagnostic performance were determined by Fleiss, Cohen's kappa (κ), and logistic regression, respectively. RESULTS: There were 167 contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) versus 114 MR data. Overall, IRA was moderate (κ = 0.47, 0.52); IRA was moderate-to-good for arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule (κ = 0.56-0.69); excellent for diameter and tumor embolus (κ = 0.99). Overall, ICA between LI-RADS and LS was moderate (κ = 0.44-0.50); ICA was good for scores 1-2 (κ = 0.71-0.90), moderate for scores 3 and 5 (κ = 0.41-0.52), but very poor for score 4 (κ = 0.11-0.19). LI-RADS produced significantly lower accuracy (78.6% vs. 87.2%) and sensitivity (72.1% vs. 92.8%), higher specificity (97.3% vs. 71.2%) and positive likelihood ratio (+LR: 26.32 vs. 3.23) in diagnosis of HCC. CECT produced relatively low IRA, ICA, and diagnostic ability against MR. CONCLUSION: There were substantial variations in liver observations between LI-RADS and LS. Further study is needed to investigate ICA between CECT and MR.
PURPOSE: To compare the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and a criteria-free Likert scale (LS) reporting models for classifying computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MR) findings of suspicious hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Imaging data of 281 hepatic nodules in 203 patients were retrospectively included. Imaging characteristics including diameter, arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule were reviewed independently by two groups of readers using LI-RADS and LS (range, score 1-5). LS is primarily based on the overall impression of image findings without using fixed criteria. Interreader agreement (IRA), intraclass agreement (ICA), and diagnostic performance were determined by Fleiss, Cohen's kappa (κ), and logistic regression, respectively. RESULTS: There were 167 contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) versus 114 MR data. Overall, IRA was moderate (κ = 0.47, 0.52); IRA was moderate-to-good for arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule (κ = 0.56-0.69); excellent for diameter and tumor embolus (κ = 0.99). Overall, ICA between LI-RADS and LS was moderate (κ = 0.44-0.50); ICA was good for scores 1-2 (κ = 0.71-0.90), moderate for scores 3 and 5 (κ = 0.41-0.52), but very poor for score 4 (κ = 0.11-0.19). LI-RADS produced significantly lower accuracy (78.6% vs. 87.2%) and sensitivity (72.1% vs. 92.8%), higher specificity (97.3% vs. 71.2%) and positive likelihood ratio (+LR: 26.32 vs. 3.23) in diagnosis of HCC. CECT produced relatively low IRA, ICA, and diagnostic ability against MR. CONCLUSION: There were substantial variations in liver observations between LI-RADS and LS. Further study is needed to investigate ICA between CECT and MR.
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
Authors: Barbara Schellhaas; Matthias Hammon; Deike Strobel; Lukas Pfeifer; Christian Kielisch; Ruediger S Goertz; Alexander Cavallaro; Rolf Janka; Markus F Neurath; Michael Uder; Hannes Seuss Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mohammad Abd Alkhalik Basha; Mohamad Zakarya AlAzzazy; Ayman F Ahmed; Hala Y Yousef; Samar Mohamad Shehata; Dena Abd El Aziz El Sammak; Talaat Fathy; Ahmed Ali Obaya; Eman H Abdelbary Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrea Esposito; Valentina Buscarino; Dario Raciti; Elena Casiraghi; Matteo Manini; Pietro Biondetti; Laura Forzenigo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-10-05 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Clinton J Wang; Charlie A Hamm; Lynn J Savic; Marc Ferrante; Isabel Schobert; Todd Schlachter; MingDe Lin; Jeffrey C Weinreb; James S Duncan; Julius Chapiro; Brian Letzen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lily H Kim; Edward H Lee; Michelle Galvez; Murat Aksoy; Stefan Skare; Rafael O'Halloran; Michael S B Edwards; Samantha J Holdsworth; Kristen W Yeom Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2019-07-05
Authors: An Tang; Mustafa R Bashir; Michael T Corwin; Irene Cruite; Christoph F Dietrich; Richard K G Do; Eric C Ehman; Kathryn J Fowler; Hero K Hussain; Reena C Jha; Adib R Karam; Adrija Mamidipalli; Robert M Marks; Donald G Mitchell; Tara A Morgan; Michael A Ohliger; Amol Shah; Kim-Nhien Vu; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Victoria Chernyak; Kathryn J Fowler; Aya Kamaya; Ania Z Kielar; Khaled M Elsayes; Mustafa R Bashir; Yuko Kono; Richard K Do; Donald G Mitchell; Amit G Singal; An Tang; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 11.105