Literature DB >> 34910539

Associations of Ultrasound LI-RADS Visualization Score With Examination, Sonographer, and Radiologist Factors: Retrospective Assessment in Over 10,000 Examinations.

David T Fetzer1, Travis Browning1,2, Yin Xi1, Takeshi Yokoo1, Amit G Singal3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND. When performing ultrasound (US) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening, numerous factors may impair hepatic visualization, potentially lowering sensitivity. US LI-RADS includes a visualization score as a technical adequacy measure. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to identify associations between examination, sonographer, and radiologist factors and the visualization score in liver US HCC screening. METHODS. This retrospective study included 6598 patients (3979 men, 2619 women; mean age, 58 years) at risk for HCC who underwent a total of 10,589 liver US examinations performed by 91 sonographers and interpreted by 50 radiologists. Visualization scores (A, no or minimal limitations; B, moderate limitations; C, severe limitations) were extracted from clinical reports. Patient location (emergency department [ED], in-patient, outpatient), sonographer and radiologist liver US volumes during the study period (< 50, 50-500, > 500 examinations), and radiologist practice pattern (US, abdominal, community, interventional) were recorded. Associations with visualization scores were explored. RESULTS. Frequencies of visualization scores were 71.5%, 24.2%, and 4.2% for A, B, and C, respectively. Scores varied significantly (p < .001) between examinations performed in ED patients (49.8%, 40.1%, and 10.2%), inpatients (58.8%, 33.9%, and 7.3%), and outpatients (76.7%, 20.3%, and 2.9%). Scores also varied significantly (p < .001) by sonographer volume (< 50 examinations: 58.4%, 33.7%, and 7.9%; > 500 examinations: 72.9%, 22.5%, and 4.6%); reader volume (< 50 examinations: 62.9%, 29.9%, and 7.1%; > 500 examinations: 67.3%, 28.0%, and 4.7%); and reader practice pattern (US: 74.5%, 21.3%, and 4.3%; abdominal: 67.0%, 28.1%, and 4.8%; community: 75.2%, 21.9%, and 2.9%; interventional: 68.5%, 24.1%, and 7.4%). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors of score C were patient location (ED/inpatient: odds ratio [OR], 2.62; p < .001) and sonographer volume (< 50: OR, 1.55; p = .01). Among sonographers performing 50 or more examinations, the percentage of outpatient examinations with score C ranged from 0.8% to 5.4%; 9/33 were above the upper 95% CI of 3.2%. CONCLUSION. The US LI-RADS visualization score may identify factors affecting quality of HCC screening examinations and identify outlier sonographers in terms of poor examination quality. The approach also highlights potential systematic biases among radiologists in their quality assessment process. CLINICAL IMPACT. These findings may be applied to guide targeted quality improvement efforts and establish best practices and performance standards for screening programs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HCC; LI-RADS; quality; screening; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34910539      PMCID: PMC9270853          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.21.26735

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   6.582


  19 in total

1.  ACR Ultrasound Liver Reporting and Data System: Multicenter Assessment of Clinical Performance at One Year.

Authors:  John D Millet; Aya Kamaya; Hailey H Choi; Nirvikar Dahiya; Paul M Murphy; Mujtaba Z Naveed; Mary O'Boyle; Laura A Parra; Marcelina G Perez; Amir M Pirmoazen; Shuchi K Rodgers; Ashish P Wasnik; Katherine E Maturen
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 2.  Contemporary Epidemiology of Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis.

Authors:  Andrew M Moon; Amit G Singal; Elliot B Tapper
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 11.382

3.  An assessment of benefits and harms of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis.

Authors:  Omair Atiq; Jasmin Tiro; Adam C Yopp; Adam Muffler; Jorge A Marrero; Neehar D Parikh; Caitlin Murphy; Katharine McCallister; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 17.425

4.  Predictors of adequate ultrasound quality for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis.

Authors:  O Simmons; D T Fetzer; T Yokoo; J A Marrero; A Yopp; Y Kono; N D Parikh; T Browning; A G Singal
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 8.171

5.  Validation of US Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2017 in Patients at High Risk for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jung Hee Son; Sang Hyun Choi; So Yeon Kim; Hye Young Jang; Jae Ho Byun; Hyung Jin Won; So Jung Lee; Young Suk Lim
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Factors that affect efficacy of ultrasound surveillance for early stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis.

Authors:  Paolo Del Poggio; Stefano Olmi; Francesca Ciccarese; Mariella Di Marco; Gian Ludovico Rapaccini; Luisa Benvegnù; Franco Borzio; Fabio Farinati; Marco Zoli; Edoardo Giovanni Giannini; Eugenio Caturelli; Maria Chiaramonte; Franco Trevisani
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 7.  Role of US LI-RADS in the LI-RADS Algorithm.

Authors:  Shuchi K Rodgers; David T Fetzer; Helena Gabriel; James H Seow; Hailey H Choi; Katherine E Maturen; Ashish P Wasnik; Tara A Morgan; Nirvikar Dahiya; Mary K O'Boyle; Yuko Kono; Claude B Sirlin; Aya Kamaya
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2019 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 8.  Screening and Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Introduction to Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  David T Fetzer; Shuchi K Rodgers; Alison C Harris; Yuko Kono; Ashish P Wasnik; Aya Kamaya; Claude Sirlin
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 9.  Conceptual Model for the Hepatocellular Carcinoma Screening Continuum: Current Status and Research Agenda.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Anna S Lok; Ziding Feng; Fasiha Kanwal; Neehar D Parikh
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Benefits and Harms of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in a Prospective Cohort of Patients With Cirrhosis.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Sruthi Patibandla; Joseph Obi; Hannah Fullington; Neehar D Parikh; Adam C Yopp; Jorge A Marrero
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 13.576

View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparison of a multitarget blood test to ultrasound and alpha-fetoprotein for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: Results of a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Benjamin Haaland; Neehar D Parikh; A Burak Ozbay; Carol Kirshner; Shubham Chakankar; Kyle Porter; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Turgay Ayer
Journal:  Hepatol Commun       Date:  2022-08-09
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.