OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether focal liver observations are categorized differently by CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 58 patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver protocol CT and MRI within 1 month of each other. Two readers assigned a LI-RADS category for all focal liver observations in consensus. A significant category upgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS categories 1 and 2 or nonvisualization to LI-RADS categories 3-5, from LI-RADS category 3 to category 4 or 5, from LI-RADS category 4 to category 5, or from any category to LI-RADS category 5V. A significant downgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS category 5 to categories 1-4, from LI-RADS category 4 to categories 1-3, or from LI-RADS category 3 to categories 1 or 2. RESULTS: The LI-RADS category was different between CT and MRI for 77.2% (176/228) of observations. A significant upgrade occurred on MRI for 42.5% (97/228) of observations because of nonvisualization by CT (n = 78), capsule (n = 8), arterial hyperenhancement (n = 4), intratumoral fat (n = 2), larger size (n = 2), tumor in portal vein (n = 2), and wash-out (n = 1). Of these 97 upgraded observations, two were upgraded to LI-RADS category 5V, 15 were upgraded to category 5, and 13 were upgraded to category 4. A significant downgrade occurred on MRI for 8.8% (20/228) of observations because of marked T2 hyperintensity (n = 14), smaller size (n = 2), wedge shape (n = 2), and marked T2 hypointensity (n = 2). CONCLUSION: LI-RADS categorization of focal liver observations is dependent on imaging modality. MRI results in both upgraded and downgraded categorization compared with CT in an important proportion of observations.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether focal liver observations are categorized differently by CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 58 patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver protocol CT and MRI within 1 month of each other. Two readers assigned a LI-RADS category for all focal liver observations in consensus. A significant category upgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS categories 1 and 2 or nonvisualization to LI-RADS categories 3-5, from LI-RADS category 3 to category 4 or 5, from LI-RADS category 4 to category 5, or from any category to LI-RADS category 5V. A significant downgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS category 5 to categories 1-4, from LI-RADS category 4 to categories 1-3, or from LI-RADS category 3 to categories 1 or 2. RESULTS: The LI-RADS category was different between CT and MRI for 77.2% (176/228) of observations. A significant upgrade occurred on MRI for 42.5% (97/228) of observations because of nonvisualization by CT (n = 78), capsule (n = 8), arterial hyperenhancement (n = 4), intratumoral fat (n = 2), larger size (n = 2), tumor in portal vein (n = 2), and wash-out (n = 1). Of these 97 upgraded observations, two were upgraded to LI-RADS category 5V, 15 were upgraded to category 5, and 13 were upgraded to category 4. A significant downgrade occurred on MRI for 8.8% (20/228) of observations because of marked T2 hyperintensity (n = 14), smaller size (n = 2), wedge shape (n = 2), and marked T2 hypointensity (n = 2). CONCLUSION: LI-RADS categorization of focal liver observations is dependent on imaging modality. MRI results in both upgraded and downgraded categorization compared with CT in an important proportion of observations.
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: Thomas A Hope; Rizwan Aslam; Stefanie Weinstein; Benjamin M Yeh; Carlos U Corvera; Alex Monto; Judy Yee Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Tyler J Fraum; Roberto Cannella; Daniel R Ludwig; Richard Tsai; Muhammad Naeem; Maverick LeBlanc; Amber Salter; Allan Tsung; Anup S Shetty; Amir A Borhani; Alessandro Furlan; Kathryn J Fowler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-10-25 Impact factor: 5.315