Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 9/2019

26.02.2019 | Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Longitudinal evolution of CT and MRI LI-RADS v2014 category 1, 2, 3, and 4 observations

verfasst von: Cheng William Hong, Charlie C. Park, Adrija Mamidipalli, Jonathan C. Hooker, Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy, Saya Igarashi, Mohanad Alhumayed, Yuko Kono, Rohit Loomba, Tanya Wolfson, Anthony Gamst, Paul Murphy, Claude B. Sirlin

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 9/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

This study assesses the risk of progression of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) categories, and the effects of inter-exam changes in modality or radiologist on LI-RADS categorization.

Methods

Clinical LI-RADS v2014 CT and MRI exams at our institution between January 2014 and September 2017 were retrospectively identified. Untreated LR-1, LR-2, LR-3, and LR-4 observations with at least one follow-up exam were included. Three hundred and seventy-two observations in 214 patients (149 male, 65 female, mean age 61 ± 10 years) were included during the study period (715 exams total). Cumulative incidence curves for progression to malignant LI-RADS categories (LR-5 or LR-M) and to LR-4 or higher were generated for each index category and compared using log-rank tests with a resampling extension. Relationships between inter-exam changes in LI-RADS category and modality or radiologist, adjusted for inter-exam time intervals, were modeled using mixed effect logistic regressions.

Results

Median inter-exam follow-up interval and total follow-up duration were 123 and 227 days, respectively. Index LR-1, LR-2, LR-3, and LR-4 differed significantly in their cumulative incidences of progression to malignant categories (p < 0.0001), which were 0%, 2%, 7%, and 32% at 6 months, respectively. Index LR-1, LR-2, and LR-3 differed significantly in cumulative incidences of progression to LR-4 or higher (p = 0.003). MRI-MRI exam pairs had more stable LI-RADS categorization compared to CT-CT (OR = 0.460, p = 0.0018).

Conclusions

LI-RADS observations demonstrate increasing risk of progression to malignancy with increasing category ranging from 0% for LR-1 to 32% for LR-4 at 6 months. Inter-exam modality changes are associated with LI-RADS category changes.

Key Points

• While the majority of LR-2 observations remain stable over long-term follow-up, LR-3 and especially LR-4 observations have a higher risk for category progression.
• Category transitions between sequential exams using different modalities (CT vs. MRI) may reflect modality differences rather than biological change. MRI, especially with the same type of contrast agent, may provide the most reproducible categorization, although this needs additional validation.
• In a clinical practice setting, in which radiologists refer to prior imaging and reports, there was no significant association between changes in radiologist and changes in LI-RADS categorization.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS et al (2018) AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 67:358–380CrossRefPubMed Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS et al (2018) AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 67:358–380CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (liver imaging reporting and data system): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS management working group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065CrossRefPubMed Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (liver imaging reporting and data system): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS management working group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Elsayes KM, Kielar AZ, Agrons MM et al (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system: an expert consensus statement. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 4:29–39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Elsayes KM, Kielar AZ, Agrons MM et al (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system: an expert consensus statement. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 4:29–39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, Hussain HK, Pomfret EA, Bruix J (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 266:376–382 Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, Hussain HK, Pomfret EA, Bruix J (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 266:376–382
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Tang A, Bashir MR, Corwin MT et al (2018) Evidence supporting LI-RADS major features for CT- and MR imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiology 286:29–48CrossRefPubMed Tang A, Bashir MR, Corwin MT et al (2018) Evidence supporting LI-RADS major features for CT- and MR imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiology 286:29–48CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Chen N, Motosugi U, Morisaka H et al (2016) Added value of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatocyte-phase image to the LI-RADS system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 15:49–59CrossRefPubMed Chen N, Motosugi U, Morisaka H et al (2016) Added value of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatocyte-phase image to the LI-RADS system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 15:49–59CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi SH, Byun JH, Kim SY et al (2016) Liver imaging reporting and data system v2014 with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: validation of LI-RADS category 4 and 5 criteria. Invest Radiol 51:483–490CrossRefPubMed Choi SH, Byun JH, Kim SY et al (2016) Liver imaging reporting and data system v2014 with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: validation of LI-RADS category 4 and 5 criteria. Invest Radiol 51:483–490CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Cha DI, Jang KM, Kim SH, Kang TW, Song KD (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system on CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol 27:4394–4405 Cha DI, Jang KM, Kim SH, Kang TW, Song KD (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system on CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol 27:4394–4405
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Abd Alkhalik Basha M, Abd El Aziz El Sammak D, El Sammak AA (2017) Diagnostic efficacy of the Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) with CT imaging in categorising small nodules (10–20 mm) detected in the cirrhotic liver at screening ultrasound. Clin Radiol 72:901.e1–901.e11CrossRef Abd Alkhalik Basha M, Abd El Aziz El Sammak D, El Sammak AA (2017) Diagnostic efficacy of the Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) with CT imaging in categorising small nodules (10–20 mm) detected in the cirrhotic liver at screening ultrasound. Clin Radiol 72:901.e1–901.e11CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim YY, An C, Kim S, Kim MJ (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of prospective application of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in gadoxetate-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 28:2038–2046 Kim YY, An C, Kim S, Kim MJ (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of prospective application of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in gadoxetate-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 28:2038–2046
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu W, Qin J, Guo R et al (2018) Accuracy of the diagnostic evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma with LI-RADS. Acta Radiol 59:140–146CrossRefPubMed Liu W, Qin J, Guo R et al (2018) Accuracy of the diagnostic evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma with LI-RADS. Acta Radiol 59:140–146CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Tanabe M, Kanki A, Wolfson T et al (2016) Imaging outcomes of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2014 category 2, 3, and 4 observations detected at CT and MR imaging. Radiology 281:129–139CrossRefPubMed Tanabe M, Kanki A, Wolfson T et al (2016) Imaging outcomes of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2014 category 2, 3, and 4 observations detected at CT and MR imaging. Radiology 281:129–139CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Choi JY, Cho HC, Sun M, Kim HC, Sirlin CB (2013) Indeterminate observations (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3) on MRI in the cirrhotic liver: fate and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:993–1001 Choi JY, Cho HC, Sun M, Kim HC, Sirlin CB (2013) Indeterminate observations (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3) on MRI in the cirrhotic liver: fate and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:993–1001
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Burke LMB, Sofue K, Alagiyawanna M et al (2016) Natural history of liver imaging reporting and data system category 4 nodules in MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:1758–1766CrossRef Burke LMB, Sofue K, Alagiyawanna M et al (2016) Natural history of liver imaging reporting and data system category 4 nodules in MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:1758–1766CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Sofue K, Burke LMB, Nilmini V et al (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system category 4 observations in MRI: risk factors predicting upgrade to category 5. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:783–792CrossRefPubMed Sofue K, Burke LMB, Nilmini V et al (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system category 4 observations in MRI: risk factors predicting upgrade to category 5. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:783–792CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Law CG, Brookmeyer R (1992) Effects of mid-point imputation on the analysis of doubly censored data. Stat Med 11:1569–1578CrossRefPubMed Law CG, Brookmeyer R (1992) Effects of mid-point imputation on the analysis of doubly censored data. Stat Med 11:1569–1578CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Mitchell DG, Bashir MR, Sirlin CB (2017) Management implications and outcomes of LI-RADS-2, -3, -4, and -M category observations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:143–148 Mitchell DG, Bashir MR, Sirlin CB (2017) Management implications and outcomes of LI-RADS-2, -3, -4, and -M category observations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:143–148
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System:: substantial discordance between CT and MR for imaging classification of hepatic nodules. Acad Radiol 23:344–352 Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System:: substantial discordance between CT and MR for imaging classification of hepatic nodules. Acad Radiol 23:344–352
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Chernyak V, Flusberg M, Law A, Kobi M, Paroder V, Rozenblit AM (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system: discordance between computed tomography and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma major features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000642 Chernyak V, Flusberg M, Law A, Kobi M, Paroder V, Rozenblit AM (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system: discordance between computed tomography and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma major features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 42(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​RCT.​0000000000000642​
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Fowler KJ, Tang A, Santillan C et al (2018) Interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2014 algorithm and imaging features for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a large international multireader study. Radiology 286:173–185CrossRefPubMed Fowler KJ, Tang A, Santillan C et al (2018) Interreader reliability of LI-RADS version 2014 algorithm and imaging features for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a large international multireader study. Radiology 286:173–185CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Liu PS et al (2014) Repeatability of diagnostic features and scoring systems for hepatocellular carcinoma by using MR imaging. Radiology 272:132–142 Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Liu PS et al (2014) Repeatability of diagnostic features and scoring systems for hepatocellular carcinoma by using MR imaging. Radiology 272:132–142
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Barth BK, Donati OF, Fischer MA et al (2016) Reliability, validity, and reader acceptance of LI-RADS—an in-depth analysis. Acad Radiol 23:1145–1153CrossRefPubMed Barth BK, Donati OF, Fischer MA et al (2016) Reliability, validity, and reader acceptance of LI-RADS—an in-depth analysis. Acad Radiol 23:1145–1153CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Ehman EC, Behr SC, Umetsu SE et al (2016) Rate of observation and inter-observer agreement for LI-RADS major features at CT and MRI in 184 pathology proven hepatocellular carcinomas. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:963–969CrossRefPubMedCentral Ehman EC, Behr SC, Umetsu SE et al (2016) Rate of observation and inter-observer agreement for LI-RADS major features at CT and MRI in 184 pathology proven hepatocellular carcinomas. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:963–969CrossRefPubMedCentral
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Classifying CT/MR findings in patients with suspicion of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of liver imaging reporting and data system and criteria-free Likert scale reporting models. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:373–383 Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Classifying CT/MR findings in patients with suspicion of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of liver imaging reporting and data system and criteria-free Likert scale reporting models. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:373–383
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE (2013) Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:611–617 Lee CS, Nagy PG, Weaver SJ, Newman-Toker DE (2013) Cognitive and system factors contributing to diagnostic errors in radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:611–617
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 35:1668–1676CrossRefPubMed Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. Radiographics 35:1668–1676CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Longitudinal evolution of CT and MRI LI-RADS v2014 category 1, 2, 3, and 4 observations
verfasst von
Cheng William Hong
Charlie C. Park
Adrija Mamidipalli
Jonathan C. Hooker
Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy
Saya Igarashi
Mohanad Alhumayed
Yuko Kono
Rohit Loomba
Tanya Wolfson
Anthony Gamst
Paul Murphy
Claude B. Sirlin
Publikationsdatum
26.02.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06058-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2019

European Radiology 9/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.