Barbara Schellhaas1, Matthias Hammon2, Deike Strobel1, Lukas Pfeifer1, Christian Kielisch1, Ruediger S Goertz1, Alexander Cavallaro2, Rolf Janka2, Markus F Neurath1, Michael Uder2, Hannes Seuss3. 1. Department of Internal Medicine 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany. 2. Department of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany. hannes.seuss@uk-erlangen.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared the interobserver agreement for the recently introduced contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-based algorithm CEUS-LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System) versus the well-established magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-LI-RADS for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. METHODS: Focal liver lesions in 50 high-risk patients (mean age 66.2 ± 11.8 years; 39 male) were assessed retrospectively with CEUS and MRI. Two independent observers reviewed CEUS and MRI examinations, separately, classifying observations according to CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016 and MRI-LI-RADSv.2014. Interobserver agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Forty-three lesions were HCCs; two were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas; five were benign lesions. Arterial phase hyperenhancement was perceived less frequently with CEUS than with MRI (37/50 / 38/50 lesions = 74%/78% [CEUS; observer 1/observer 2] versus 46/50 / 44/50 lesions = 92%/88% [MRI; observer 1/observer 2]). Washout appearance was observed in 34/50 / 20/50 lesions = 68%/40% with CEUS and 31/50 / 31/50 lesions = 62%/62%) with MRI. Interobserver agreement was moderate for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.511/0.565 [CEUS/MRI]) and "washout" (ĸ = 0.490/0.582 [CEUS/MRI]), fair for CEUS-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.309) and substantial for MRI-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.609). Intermodality agreement was fair for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.329), slight to fair for "washout" (ĸ = 0.202) and LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.218) CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement is substantial for MRI-LI-RADS and only fair for CEUS-LI-RADS. This is mostly because interobserver agreement in the perception of washout appearance is better in MRI than in CEUS. Further refinement of the LI-RADS algorithms and increasing education and practice may be necessary to improve the concordance between CEUS and MRI for the final LI-RADS categorization. KEY POINTS: • CEUS-LI-RADS and MRI-LIRADS enable standardized non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. • With CEUS, interobserver agreement is better for arterial hyperenhancement than for "washout". • Interobserver agreement for major features is moderate for both CEUS and MRI. • Interobserver agreement for LI-RADS category is substantial for MRI, and fair for CEUS. • Interobserver-agreement for CEUS-LI-RADS will presumably improve with ongoing use of the algorithm.
OBJECTIVES: We compared the interobserver agreement for the recently introduced contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-based algorithm CEUS-LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System) versus the well-established magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-LI-RADS for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. METHODS: Focal liver lesions in 50 high-risk patients (mean age 66.2 ± 11.8 years; 39 male) were assessed retrospectively with CEUS and MRI. Two independent observers reviewed CEUS and MRI examinations, separately, classifying observations according to CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016 and MRI-LI-RADSv.2014. Interobserver agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Forty-three lesions were HCCs; two were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas; five were benign lesions. Arterial phase hyperenhancement was perceived less frequently with CEUS than with MRI (37/50 / 38/50 lesions = 74%/78% [CEUS; observer 1/observer 2] versus 46/50 / 44/50 lesions = 92%/88% [MRI; observer 1/observer 2]). Washout appearance was observed in 34/50 / 20/50 lesions = 68%/40% with CEUS and 31/50 / 31/50 lesions = 62%/62%) with MRI. Interobserver agreement was moderate for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.511/0.565 [CEUS/MRI]) and "washout" (ĸ = 0.490/0.582 [CEUS/MRI]), fair for CEUS-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.309) and substantial for MRI-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.609). Intermodality agreement was fair for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.329), slight to fair for "washout" (ĸ = 0.202) and LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.218) CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement is substantial for MRI-LI-RADS and only fair for CEUS-LI-RADS. This is mostly because interobserver agreement in the perception of washout appearance is better in MRI than in CEUS. Further refinement of the LI-RADS algorithms and increasing education and practice may be necessary to improve the concordance between CEUS and MRI for the final LI-RADS categorization. KEY POINTS: • CEUS-LI-RADS and MRI-LIRADS enable standardized non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. • With CEUS, interobserver agreement is better for arterial hyperenhancement than for "washout". • Interobserver agreement for major features is moderate for both CEUS and MRI. • Interobserver agreement for LI-RADS category is substantial for MRI, and fair for CEUS. • Interobserver-agreement for CEUS-LI-RADS will presumably improve with ongoing use of the algorithm.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carcinoma, hepatocellular; Diagnostic techniques and procedures; Liver cirrhosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasonography
Authors: Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Tom Klopffleisch; Julia Nierhoff; Eva Herrmann; Johannes Vermehren; Maximilian D Schneider; Stefan Zeuzem; Joerg Bojunga Journal: Liver Int Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Fabio Piscaglia; Stephanie R Wilson; Andrej Lyshchik; David Cosgrove; Christoph F Dietrich; Hyun-Jung Jang; Tae Kyoung Kim; Veronica Salvatore; Juergen Karl Willmann; Claude B Sirlin; Yuko Kono Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: S Leoni; F Piscaglia; A Granito; A Borghi; M Galassi; S Marinelli; E Terzi; L Bolondi Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 6.548
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: Borna K Barth; Olivio F Donati; Michael A Fischer; Erika J Ulbrich; Christoph A Karlo; Anton Becker; Burkhard Seifert; Caecilia S Reiner Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Rikiya Yamashita; Amber Mittendorf; Zhe Zhu; Kathryn J Fowler; Cynthia S Santillan; Claude B Sirlin; Mustafa R Bashir; Richard K G Do Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-01
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