An Tang1,2, Karma Abukasm3, Guilherme Moura Cunha4,5, Bin Song6, Jin Wang7, Mathilde Wagner8, Christoph F Dietrich9, Giuseppe Brancatelli10, Kazuhiko Ueda11, Jin-Young Choi12, Diego Aguirre13, Claude B Sirlin5. 1. Department of Radiology, Radio-Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal (CHUM), 1058 rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 3J4, Canada. an.tang@umontreal.ca. 2. Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada. an.tang@umontreal.ca. 3. Department of Radiology, Radio-Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal (CHUM), 1058 rue Saint-Denis, Montréal, Québec, H2X 3J4, Canada. 4. Clínica de Diagnóstico Por Imagem (CDPI) - DASA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Department of Radiology, Liver Imaging Group, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 7. The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China. 8. Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. 9. Caritas-Krankenhaus, Medizinische Klinik 2, Bad Mergentheim, Germany. 10. Dipartimento Di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze E Diagnostica Avanzata (BIND), University Hospital of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 11. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan. 12. Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 13. Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogota, Bogota, Colombia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform an international survey on current practices in imaging-based surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and assessment of treatment response for HCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three themes were covered in this international survey: demographics of respondents and liver imaging expertise; imaging practices for screening, surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and assessment of treatment response for HCC; and diagnostic imaging systems used. Descriptive summaries were created. RESULTS: Of 151 respondents, 22.5% were from Asia, 6.0% from Europe, 19.9% from North America, 26.5% from South America, and 25.2% from Australasia; 57.0% respondents worked in academic and 34.4% in private or mixed settings. Non-contrast ultrasound was most commonly used for screening and surveillance of HCC (90.7%), and multiphase computed tomography was used for diagnosis (96.0%). Extracellular contrast agents (69.5%) were the most commonly used MRI contrast agents and Lumason/SonoVue (31.1%) is the most commonly used contrast-enhanced ultrasound contrast agent. A majority (94.0%) of respondents use ancillary imaging features for assessment of liver lesions in at-risk patients. Usage of diagnostic imaging systems for HCC varied by region. RECIST or mRECIST criteria were most commonly used for assessing HCC treatment response (48.3%). Most respondents agreed that a standardized classification for the diagnosis of HCC is needed (68.9%) and that an atlas and lexicon would help improve inter-reader agreement (71.5%). CONCLUSION: Practices and recommendations for imaging of HCC vary between geographical regions. Future efforts to develop a unified system should address regional differences and potential barriers for adoption of a standardized diagnostic system for HCC.
PURPOSE: To perform an international survey on current practices in imaging-based surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and assessment of treatment response for HCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three themes were covered in this international survey: demographics of respondents and liver imaging expertise; imaging practices for screening, surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and assessment of treatment response for HCC; and diagnostic imaging systems used. Descriptive summaries were created. RESULTS: Of 151 respondents, 22.5% were from Asia, 6.0% from Europe, 19.9% from North America, 26.5% from South America, and 25.2% from Australasia; 57.0% respondents worked in academic and 34.4% in private or mixed settings. Non-contrast ultrasound was most commonly used for screening and surveillance of HCC (90.7%), and multiphase computed tomography was used for diagnosis (96.0%). Extracellular contrast agents (69.5%) were the most commonly used MRI contrast agents and Lumason/SonoVue (31.1%) is the most commonly used contrast-enhanced ultrasound contrast agent. A majority (94.0%) of respondents use ancillary imaging features for assessment of liver lesions in at-risk patients. Usage of diagnostic imaging systems for HCC varied by region. RECIST or mRECIST criteria were most commonly used for assessing HCC treatment response (48.3%). Most respondents agreed that a standardized classification for the diagnosis of HCC is needed (68.9%) and that an atlas and lexicon would help improve inter-reader agreement (71.5%). CONCLUSION: Practices and recommendations for imaging of HCC vary between geographical regions. Future efforts to develop a unified system should address regional differences and potential barriers for adoption of a standardized diagnostic system for HCC.
Authors: Peter Ferenci; Michael Fried; Douglas Labrecque; Jordi Bruix; Morris Sherman; Masao Omata; Jenny Heathcote; Teehra Piratsivuth; Mike Kew; Jesse A Otegbayo; S S Zheng; S Sarin; Saeed S Hamid; Salma Barakat Modawi; Wolfgang Fleig; Suliman Fedail; Alan Thomson; Aamir Khan; Peter Malfertheiner; George Lau; Flair J Carillo; Justus Krabshuis; Anton Le Mair Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Yoon Jin Lee; Jeong Min Lee; Ji Sung Lee; Hwa Young Lee; Bo Hyun Park; Young Hoon Kim; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter D Poullos; Joseph J Tseng; Marc L Melcher; Waldo Concepcion; Andreas M Loening; Jarrett Rosenberg; Jüergen K Willmann Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nicolas Goossens; Amit G Singal; Lindsay Y King; Karin L Andersson; Bryan C Fuchs; Cecilia Besa; Bachir Taouli; Raymond T Chung; Yujin Hoshida Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06-22 Impact factor: 4.396