OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to validate the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2014 category 4 (LR-4) and 5 (LR-5) criteria on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with chronic liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January and December 2012, 300 patients with chronic liver disease who had hepatic nodules 3.0 cm or smaller at surveillance ultrasonography and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI were included. LI-RADS category was retrospectively assigned to each nodule on MRI. Final diagnosis was assessed using pathologic diagnosis only (operation or core-needle biopsy) or pathologic and clinical diagnosis (marginal recurrence after treatment or a change in lesion size on follow-up imaging). To validate the LR-4 and LR-5 criteria, the sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and false referral rate for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma were examined. RESULTS: Based on major imaging features only, 137 nodules were initially assigned as LR-3, but 133 (97.1%) were upgraded into LR-4 by the presence of ancillary features. Excluding the remaining 4 LR-3 and 3 LR-M nodules, we analyzed 379 nodules in 294 patients, consisting of 211 LR-4 and 168 LR-5 nodules. Using pathologic diagnosis only, the sensitivity and PPV with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for LR-5 were higher than those for LR-4 (57.3% [50.6-63.7] vs 42.7% [36.3-49.4]; 94.6% [89.0-97.5] vs 82.0% [73.7-88.1]), with a lower false referral rate (5.4% [2.5-11.0] vs 18.0% [11.9-26.3]). Using pathologic and clinical diagnosis, PPV and 95% CI for LR-5 were higher than that for LR-4 (95.2% [90.7-97.7] vs 79.1% [73.1-84.1]), whereas sensitivity and 95% CI for LR-5 was similar to that for LR-4 (48.9% [43.6-54.3] vs 51.1% [45.7-56.4]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic liver disease, LR-5 criteria on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI had excellent PPV for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma, whereas LR-4 criteria showed good PPV, but are only of limited use.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to validate the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2014 category 4 (LR-4) and 5 (LR-5) criteria on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with chronic liver disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January and December 2012, 300 patients with chronic liver disease who had hepatic nodules 3.0 cm or smaller at surveillance ultrasonography and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI were included. LI-RADS category was retrospectively assigned to each nodule on MRI. Final diagnosis was assessed using pathologic diagnosis only (operation or core-needle biopsy) or pathologic and clinical diagnosis (marginal recurrence after treatment or a change in lesion size on follow-up imaging). To validate the LR-4 and LR-5 criteria, the sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and false referral rate for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma were examined. RESULTS: Based on major imaging features only, 137 nodules were initially assigned as LR-3, but 133 (97.1%) were upgraded into LR-4 by the presence of ancillary features. Excluding the remaining 4 LR-3 and 3 LR-M nodules, we analyzed 379 nodules in 294 patients, consisting of 211 LR-4 and 168 LR-5 nodules. Using pathologic diagnosis only, the sensitivity and PPV with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for LR-5 were higher than those for LR-4 (57.3% [50.6-63.7] vs 42.7% [36.3-49.4]; 94.6% [89.0-97.5] vs 82.0% [73.7-88.1]), with a lower false referral rate (5.4% [2.5-11.0] vs 18.0% [11.9-26.3]). Using pathologic and clinical diagnosis, PPV and 95% CI for LR-5 were higher than that for LR-4 (95.2% [90.7-97.7] vs 79.1% [73.1-84.1]), whereas sensitivity and 95% CI for LR-5 was similar to that for LR-4 (48.9% [43.6-54.3] vs 51.1% [45.7-56.4]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic liver disease, LR-5 criteria on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI had excellent PPV for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma, whereas LR-4 criteria showed good PPV, but are only of limited use.
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: 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: 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
Authors: Katherine S Cools; Andrew M Moon; Lauren M B Burke; Katrina A McGinty; Paula D Strassle; David A Gerber Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 5.799