Natally Horvat1,2, Ines Nikolovski1, Niamh Long1, Scott Gerst1, Jian Zheng3, Linda Ma Pak3, Amber Simpson3, Junting Zheng4, Marinela Capanu4, William R Jarnagin3, Lorenzo Mannelli1, Richard Kinh Gian Do5. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Cencer, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. dok@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of major and ancillary imaging features from liver imaging reporting and data systems (LI-RADS) version 2014 and their interreader agreement when comparing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and combined tumor (cHCC-CC). METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived the requirement for patients' informed consent. Patients with resected HCC (n = 51), ICC (n = 40), and cHCC-CC (n = 11) and available pre-operative contrast-enhanced MRI were included from 2000 to 2015. Imaging features and final LI-RADS category were evaluated by four radiologists. Imaging features were compared by Fisher's exact test and interreader agreements were assessed by κ statistics. RESULTS: None of the features were unique to either HCC or non-HCC. Imaging features that were significantly more common among HCC compared to ICC and cHCC-CC included washout (76%-78% vs. 10%-35%, p < 0.001), capsule (55%-71% vs. 16%-49%, p < 0.05), and intralesional fat (27%-52% vs. 2%-12%, p < 0.002). Features that were more common among ICC and cHCC-CC included peripheral arterial phase hyperenhancement (40%-64% vs. 10%-14%, p < 0.001) and progressive central enhancement (65%-82% vs. 14%-25%, p < 0.001). The interreader agreement was moderate for each of these imaging features (κ = 0.41-0.55). Moderate agreement was also achieved in the assignment of LR-M (κ = 0.53), with an overall sensitivity and specificity for non-HCC malignancy of 86.3% and 78.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: HCC and non-HCC show significant differences in the prevalence of imaging features defined by LI-RADS, and are identified by radiologists with moderate interreader agreement. Using LI-RADS, radiologists also achieved moderate interreader agreement in the assignment of the LR-M category.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence of major and ancillary imaging features from liver imaging reporting and data systems (LI-RADS) version 2014 and their interreader agreement when comparing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and combined tumor (cHCC-CC). METHODS: The Institutional Review Board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived the requirement for patients' informed consent. Patients with resected HCC (n = 51), ICC (n = 40), and cHCC-CC (n = 11) and available pre-operative contrast-enhanced MRI were included from 2000 to 2015. Imaging features and final LI-RADS category were evaluated by four radiologists. Imaging features were compared by Fisher's exact test and interreader agreements were assessed by κ statistics. RESULTS: None of the features were unique to either HCC or non-HCC. Imaging features that were significantly more common among HCC compared to ICC and cHCC-CC included washout (76%-78% vs. 10%-35%, p < 0.001), capsule (55%-71% vs. 16%-49%, p < 0.05), and intralesional fat (27%-52% vs. 2%-12%, p < 0.002). Features that were more common among ICC and cHCC-CC included peripheral arterial phase hyperenhancement (40%-64% vs. 10%-14%, p < 0.001) and progressive central enhancement (65%-82% vs. 14%-25%, p < 0.001). The interreader agreement was moderate for each of these imaging features (κ = 0.41-0.55). Moderate agreement was also achieved in the assignment of LR-M (κ = 0.53), with an overall sensitivity and specificity for non-HCCmalignancy of 86.3% and 78.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION:HCC and non-HCC show significant differences in the prevalence of imaging features defined by LI-RADS, and are identified by radiologists with moderate interreader agreement. Using LI-RADS, radiologists also achieved moderate interreader agreement in the assignment of the LR-M category.
Authors: Ajay K Singh; Arun C Nachiappan; Hetal A Verma; Raul N Uppot; Michael A Blake; Sanjay Saini; Giles W Boland Journal: Radiographics Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: William R Jarnagin; Sharon Weber; Satish K Tickoo; Jonathan B Koea; Sam Obiekwe; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Leslie H Blumgart; David Klimstra Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sun Ah Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Kyoung Bun Lee; Seung Ho Kim; Soon Ho Yoon; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sun Kyung Jeon; Ijin Joo; Dong Ho Lee; Sang Min Lee; Hyo-Jin Kang; Kyoung-Bun Lee; Jeong Min Lee Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 5.315
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: T Peter Kingham; Victoria G Aveson; Alice C Wei; Jason A Castellanos; Peter J Allen; Daniel P Nussbaum; Yinin Hu; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Umberto Cillo; Constantino Fondevila; Matteo Donadon; Enrico Gringeri; Federico Mocchegiani; Hans J Schlitt; Jan N M Ijzermans; Marco Vivarelli; Krzysztof Zieniewicz; Steven W M Olde Damink; Bas Groot Koerkamp Journal: Liver Int Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.828