Eric C Ehman1, Spencer C Behr2, Sarah E Umetsu3, Nicholas Fidelman2, Ben M Yeh4, Linda D Ferrell5, Thomas A Hope6. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, 505 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. eric.ehman@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, 505 Parnassus Ave., San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, UCSF, 505 Parnassus Ave., Room 580, San Franicsco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 4. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, UCSF, 513 Parnassus Ave., Med Sci Room M372, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, UCSF, 505 Parnassus Ave., Moffitt Room 590A, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, VAMC San Francisco, 4150 Clement St., Room 2D007, San Francisco, CA, 94121, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare frequency and inter-reader agreement for LI-RADS v2014 major features at CT vs. MRI in pathology-proven cases of hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Pathology reports and imaging studies from patients having undergone liver transplant or hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma were reviewed. Size, location, washout, and capsule appearance for each lesion were recorded by two radiologists. Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four patients with 184 tumors were reviewed. Seventy-seven percentage of lesions were imaged by CT and 23% by MRI. No lesions were evaluated with both modalities. Mean lesion diameter was 2.6 ± 1.3 cm (ICC = 0.92). Arterial phase hyperenhancement was seen in 86% of lesions (κ = 0.75). Washout was seen in 82% of studies (κ = 0.61). Arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout were seen equally at CT and MRI (p = 1.00 and 0.46, respectively). Capsule was infrequently observed (27%) but was seen more commonly at MRI (44%) than at CT (17%) with p = 0.002 and (κ = 0.56). Forty-seven percent of lesions with at least one prior study met LI-RADS criteria for threshold growth. The rates of LI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5 were 9%, 37%, and 54%, respectively. More 1-2 cm LI-RADS 5 lesions were seen at MRI (43%) than at CT (8%), p = 0.01. CONCLUSION: A combined LI-RADS 4/5 group was 91% sensitive for hepatocellular carcinoma. Arterial enhancement and washout were seen more frequently than capsule, the sole finding seen more frequently at MRI than at CT. Inter-reader reliability was substantial for arterial hyperenhancement and washout but moderate for capsule. Capsule remains an important finding in small arterially enhancing lesions (1-2 cm) which require a second major criterion to upgrade to a LI-RADS 5 lesion.
PURPOSE: To compare frequency and inter-reader agreement for LI-RADS v2014 major features at CT vs. MRI in pathology-proven cases of hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Pathology reports and imaging studies from patients having undergone liver transplant or hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma were reviewed. Size, location, washout, and capsule appearance for each lesion were recorded by two radiologists. Cohen's kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four patients with 184 tumors were reviewed. Seventy-seven percentage of lesions were imaged by CT and 23% by MRI. No lesions were evaluated with both modalities. Mean lesion diameter was 2.6 ± 1.3 cm (ICC = 0.92). Arterial phase hyperenhancement was seen in 86% of lesions (κ = 0.75). Washout was seen in 82% of studies (κ = 0.61). Arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout were seen equally at CT and MRI (p = 1.00 and 0.46, respectively). Capsule was infrequently observed (27%) but was seen more commonly at MRI (44%) than at CT (17%) with p = 0.002 and (κ = 0.56). Forty-seven percent of lesions with at least one prior study met LI-RADS criteria for threshold growth. The rates of LI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5 were 9%, 37%, and 54%, respectively. More 1-2 cm LI-RADS 5 lesions were seen at MRI (43%) than at CT (8%), p = 0.01. CONCLUSION: A combined LI-RADS 4/5 group was 91% sensitive for hepatocellular carcinoma. Arterial enhancement and washout were seen more frequently than capsule, the sole finding seen more frequently at MRI than at CT. Inter-reader reliability was substantial for arterial hyperenhancement and washout but moderate for capsule. Capsule remains an important finding in small arterially enhancing lesions (1-2 cm) which require a second major criterion to upgrade to a LI-RADS 5 lesion.
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Peter S C Liu; Katherine E Maturen; Ravi K Kaza; Ashish P Wasnik; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Daniel I Glazer; Erica B Stein; Jeet Patel; Deepak K Somashekar; Benjamin L Viglianti; Hero K Hussain Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Young Kon Kim; Chong Soo Kim; Gyong Ho Chung; Young-Min Han; Sang Yong Lee; Su Bin Chon; Jeong Min Lee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nicholas Petruzzi; Donald Mitchell; Flavius Guglielmo; Patrick O'Kane; Sandeep Deshmukh; Christopher Roth; Conor Shortt; Stephen Balfour; Laurence Parker Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: F Y Yao; L Ferrell; N M Bass; J J Watson; P Bacchetti; A Venook; N L Ascher; J P Roberts Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Pratima Sharma; Vijayan Balan; Jose L Hernandez; Ann M Harper; Erick B Edwards; Hector Rodriguez-Luna; Thomas Byrne; Hugo E Vargas; David Mulligan; Jorge Rakela; Russell H Wiesner Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 5.799
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: Daniel R Ludwig; Tyler J Fraum; Roberto Cannella; David H Ballard; Richard Tsai; Muhammad Naeem; Maverick LeBlanc; Amber Salter; Allan Tsung; Anup S Shetty; Amir A Borhani; Alessandro Furlan; Kathryn J Fowler Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-06
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: 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: Scott M Thompson; Ishan Garg; Eric C Ehman; Shannon P Sheedy; Candice A Bookwalter; Rickey E Carter; Lewis R Roberts; Sudhakar K Venkatesh Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 3.039
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