Dong Ik Cha1, Kyung Mi Jang2, Seong Hyun Kim1, Tae Wook Kang1, Kyoung Doo Song1. 1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-Ro Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea. kmmks.jang@samsung.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess major imaging features of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) on contrast-enhanced CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and to estimate whether the combination of signal intensity favouring HCC on hepatobiliary phase (HBP) and diffusion-weighted images (DWI) can act as a major feature in LI-RADS. METHODS: Four hundred twenty one patients with 445 observations were included. Major features of LI-RADS on CT and MRI as well as HBP and DWI features were assessed. Diagnostic performances of LR-5 according to LI-RADS v2014 and modified LI-RADS which incorporate combination of HBP and DWI were assessed. Pairwise comparisons of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed. RESULTS: For HCCs, capsule appearance had the highest rate of discordance between CT and MRI (32.7%), followed by washout appearance (22.2%). Specificity (75%) of LR-5 of LI-RADS v2014 was lower than that (77.1-79.2%) of modified LI-RADS. Area under the ROC curve of modified LI-RADS (0.755-0.775) was not significantly different from that of LI-RADS v 2014 (0.709) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial discordances between CT and MRI for capsule and washout appearances in hepatic observations, and combination of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and DWI might be able to be incorporated as a major feature of LI-RADS. KEY POINTS: • Major imaging features of LI-RADS showed substantial discordances on CT and MRI. • An observation may be categorized differently depending on used imaging exam. • CT and MRI should both be performed for LR-3 and LR-4 observations. • Combination of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and DWI may be a major feature.
OBJECTIVES: To assess major imaging features of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) on contrast-enhanced CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and to estimate whether the combination of signal intensity favouring HCC on hepatobiliary phase (HBP) and diffusion-weighted images (DWI) can act as a major feature in LI-RADS. METHODS: Four hundred twenty one patients with 445 observations were included. Major features of LI-RADS on CT and MRI as well as HBP and DWI features were assessed. Diagnostic performances of LR-5 according to LI-RADS v2014 and modified LI-RADS which incorporate combination of HBP and DWI were assessed. Pairwise comparisons of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed. RESULTS: For HCCs, capsule appearance had the highest rate of discordance between CT and MRI (32.7%), followed by washout appearance (22.2%). Specificity (75%) of LR-5 of LI-RADS v2014 was lower than that (77.1-79.2%) of modified LI-RADS. Area under the ROC curve of modified LI-RADS (0.755-0.775) was not significantly different from that of LI-RADS v 2014 (0.709) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial discordances between CT and MRI for capsule and washout appearances in hepatic observations, and combination of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and DWI might be able to be incorporated as a major feature of LI-RADS. KEY POINTS: • Major imaging features of LI-RADS showed substantial discordances on CT and MRI. • An observation may be categorized differently depending on used imaging exam. • CT and MRI should both be performed for LR-3 and LR-4 observations. • Combination of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and DWI may be a major feature.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computed tomography; Diffusion-weighted images; Hepatobiliary phase; Liver imaging reporting and data system; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Kathryn J Fowler; Claude B Sirlin; Eduardo A C Costa; Judy Yee; Benjamin M Yeh; Jay P Heiken Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-03
Authors: K Aoki; K Takayasu; T Kawano; Y Muramatsu; N Moriyama; F Wakao; J Yamamoto; K Shimada; T Takayama; T Kosuge Journal: Hepatology Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: E Neri; M A Bali; A Ba-Ssalamah; P Boraschi; G Brancatelli; F Caseiro Alves; L Grazioli; T Helmberger; J M Lee; R Manfredi; L Martì-Bonmatì; C Matos; E M Merkle; B Op De Beeck; W Schima; S Skehan; V Vilgrain; C Zech; C Bartolozzi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Elmar M Merkle; Christoph J Zech; Carlo Bartolozzi; Mustafa R Bashir; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Alexander Huppertz; Jeong Min Lee; Jens Ricke; Michiie Sakamoto; Claude B Sirlin; Sheng-Long Ye; Mengsu Zeng Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 5.315
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: 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: 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