Andrea Esposito1, Valentina Buscarino2, Dario Raciti3, Elena Casiraghi4, Matteo Manini5, Pietro Biondetti6, Laura Forzenigo7. 1. Division of Radiology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Via F.Sforza 35, Milan, Italy. andrea.esposito@policlinico.mi.it. 2. Division of Radiology, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Corso M. Abbiate 21, Vercelli, Italy. 3. Division of Radiology, Città di Sesto San Giovanni Hospital, Viale G. Matteotti 83, Sesto San Giovanni, Italy. 4. Department of Computer Science (DI), University of Milan, Via G. Celoria 18, Milan, Italy. 5. Departement of Specialty and Transplant Medicine, Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Transplant Unit, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Piazza OMS 1, Bergamo, Italy. 6. Division of Radiology, Abano Terme Policlinico Hospital, Piazza C. Colombo 1, Abano Terme, Italy. 7. Division of Radiology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, Via F.Sforza 35, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of the LI-RADS v.2018 scale by comparing it with the Likert scale, in the characterization of liver lesions. METHODS: A total of 39 patients with chronic liver disease underwent MR examination for characterization of 44 liver lesions. Images were independently analyzed by two radiologists using the LI-RADS scale and by another two radiologists using the Likert scale. The reference standard used was either histopathological evaluation or a 4-year MRI follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. RESULTS: The LI-RADS scale obtained an accuracy of 80%, a sensitivity of 72%, a specificity of 93%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 93% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 70%, while the Likert scale achieved an accuracy of 79%, a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 87%, a PPV of 89% and a NPV of 70%. The area under the curve (AUC) was 85% for the LI-RADS scale and 83% for the Likert scale. The inter-observer agreement was strong (k = 0.89) between the LI-RADS evaluators and moderate (k = 0.69) between the Likert evaluators. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference between the performances of the two scales; nevertheless, we suggest that the LI-RADS scale be used, as it appeared more objective and consistent.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of the LI-RADS v.2018 scale by comparing it with the Likert scale, in the characterization of liver lesions. METHODS: A total of 39 patients with chronic liver disease underwent MR examination for characterization of 44 liver lesions. Images were independently analyzed by two radiologists using the LI-RADS scale and by another two radiologists using the Likert scale. The reference standard used was either histopathological evaluation or a 4-year MRI follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. RESULTS: The LI-RADS scale obtained an accuracy of 80%, a sensitivity of 72%, a specificity of 93%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 93% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 70%, while the Likert scale achieved an accuracy of 79%, a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 87%, a PPV of 89% and a NPV of 70%. The area under the curve (AUC) was 85% for the LI-RADS scale and 83% for the Likert scale. The inter-observer agreement was strong (k = 0.89) between the LI-RADS evaluators and moderate (k = 0.69) between the Likert evaluators. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference between the performances of the two scales; nevertheless, we suggest that the LI-RADS scale be used, as it appeared more objective and consistent.
Entities:
Keywords:
Carcinoma, hepatocellular; Data interpretation, statistical; Early detection of cancer; Liver cirrhosis; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Reena C Jha; Donald G Mitchell; Jeffery C Weinreb; Cynthia S Santillan; Benjamin M Yeh; Ronald Francois; Claude B Sirlin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Tyler J Fraum; Richard Tsai; Eric Rohe; Daniel R Ludwig; Amber Salter; ILKe Nalbantoglu; Jay P Heiken; Kathryn J Fowler Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-08-29 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: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: So Yeon Kim; Jihyun An; Young-Suk Lim; Seungbong Han; Ji-Young Lee; Jae Ho Byun; Hyung Jin Won; So Jung Lee; Han Chu Lee; Yung Sang Lee Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Vincenza Granata; Roberta Grassi; Roberta Fusco; Andrea Belli; Carmen Cutolo; Silvia Pradella; Giulia Grazzini; Michelearcangelo La Porta; Maria Chiara Brunese; Federica De Muzio; Alessandro Ottaiano; Antonio Avallone; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo Journal: Infect Agent Cancer Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 2.965
Authors: Vincenza Granata; Roberta Grassi; Roberta Fusco; Sergio Venanzio Setola; Andrea Belli; Mauro Piccirillo; Silvia Pradella; Marzia Giordano; Salvatore Cappabianca; Luca Brunese; Roberto Grassi; Antonella Petrillo; Francesco Izzo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390