Xianlun Zou1, Yan Luo1, John N Morelli2, Xuemei Hu1, Yaqi Shen3, Daoyu Hu1. 1. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. 2. Department of Radiology, St. John's Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei, China. yqshen@hust.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To eliminate the effects of field strength in determining the diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS version 2018 (LI-RADS v2018) in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from non-HCC primary liver malignancy in high-risk patients. METHODS: Patients who were pathologically confirmed intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) or combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with HCC were matched to the iCCA or cHCC-CCA patients on age, tumor size, MR scanner, and number of tumors. Two readers independently evaluated the lesions according to LI-RADS v2018. Diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018 in differentiating HCC from non-HCC primary liver malignancy were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients with 204 lesions (102 HCCs, 78 iCCAs, and 24 cHCC-CCAs) were enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 or LR-TIV (definitely due to HCC) in diagnosing HCC were 68.63% and 85.29%, respectively. LR-M or LR-TIV (may be due to non-HCC malignancy) had a sensitivity of 72.55% and a specificity of 86.27% in diagnosing non-HCC malignancy. The sensitivity of LR-M or LR-TIV (may be due to non-HCC malignancy) for iCCA and cHCC-CCA was 82.05% and 41.67%, respectively. Nearly half (11/24, 45.83%) of cHCC-CCAs were categorized as LR-5. Three tesla MR showed higher sensitivity than 1.5 T in diagnosing HCC (80.00% vs 57.69%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: When the effect of field strength was eliminated, LI-RADS v2018 demonstrated high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity in distinguishing HCC from non-HCC primary liver carcinomas. Most iCCAs were categorized as LR-M or LR-TIV (may be due to non-HCC malignancy). However, nearly half of cHCC-CCAs were assigned as LR-5.
PURPOSE: To eliminate the effects of field strength in determining the diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS version 2018 (LI-RADS v2018) in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from non-HCC primary liver malignancy in high-risk patients. METHODS:Patients who were pathologically confirmed intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) or combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with HCC were matched to the iCCA or cHCC-CCApatients on age, tumor size, MR scanner, and number of tumors. Two readers independently evaluated the lesions according to LI-RADS v2018. Diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018 in differentiating HCC from non-HCC primary liver malignancy were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients with 204 lesions (102 HCCs, 78 iCCAs, and 24 cHCC-CCAs) were enrolled. The sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 or LR-TIV (definitely due to HCC) in diagnosing HCC were 68.63% and 85.29%, respectively. LR-M or LR-TIV (may be due to non-HCC malignancy) had a sensitivity of 72.55% and a specificity of 86.27% in diagnosing non-HCC malignancy. The sensitivity of LR-M or LR-TIV (may be due to non-HCC malignancy) for iCCA and cHCC-CCA was 82.05% and 41.67%, respectively. Nearly half (11/24, 45.83%) of cHCC-CCAs were categorized as LR-5. Three tesla MR showed higher sensitivity than 1.5 T in diagnosing HCC (80.00% vs 57.69%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: When the effect of field strength was eliminated, LI-RADS v2018 demonstrated high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity in distinguishing HCC from non-HCC primary liver carcinomas. Most iCCAs were categorized as LR-M or LR-TIV (may be due to non-HCC malignancy). However, nearly half of cHCC-CCAs were assigned as LR-5.
Authors: John Bridgewater; Peter R Galle; Shahid A Khan; Josep M Llovet; Joong-Won Park; Tushar Patel; Timothy M Pawlik; Gregory J Gores Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Ijin Joo; Jeong Min Lee; Sang Min Lee; Jeong Sub Lee; Jin Young Park; Joon Koo Han Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Dong Hwan Kim; Sang Hyun Choi; Seong Ho Park; Kyung Won Kim; Jae Ho Byun; So Yeon Kim; Seung Soo Lee; Yong Moon Shin; Hyung Jin Won; Pyo-Nyun Kim Journal: Liver Int Date: 2020-03-15 Impact factor: 5.828
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: Alphonse E Sirica; Gregory J Gores; John D Groopman; Florin M Selaru; Mario Strazzabosco; Xin Wei Wang; Andrew X Zhu Journal: Hepatology Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 17.298