LI-RADS v2018 category and imaging features: inter-modality agreement between contrast-enhanced CT, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI, and extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI

被引:0
作者
Agnello, Francesco [1 ]
Cannella, Roberto [1 ]
Brancatelli, Giuseppe [1 ]
Galia, Massimo [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Palermo, Dept Radiol, Policlin Paolo Giaccone, Via Vespro 127, I-90127 Palermo, Italy
来源
RADIOLOGIA MEDICA | 2024年 / 129卷 / 11期
关键词
LI-RADS; CT; MRI; Liver; Contrast media; GD-EOB-DTPA; FOCAL LIVER-LESIONS; SMALL HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; DELAYED PHASE; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; SIGNAL-INTENSITY; HEPATIC NODULES; CIRRHOTIC LIVER; ACID;
D O I
10.1007/s11547-024-01879-8
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PurposeTo perform an intra-individual comparison of LI-RADS category and imaging features in patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on contrast-enhanced CT, gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI (EOB-MRI), and extracellular agent-enhanced MRI (ECA-MRI) and to analyze the diagnostic performance of each imaging modality.MethodThis retrospective study included cirrhotic patients with at least one LR-3, LR-4, LR-5, LR-M or LR-TIV observation imaged with at least two imaging modalities among CT, EOB-MRI, or ECA-MRI. Two radiologists evaluated the observations using the LI-RADS v2018 diagnostic algorithm. Reference standard included pathologic confirmation and imaging criteria according to LI-RADS v2018. Imaging features were compared between different exams using the McNemar test. Inter-modality agreement was calculated by using the weighted Cohen's kappa (k) test.ResultsA total of 144 observations (mean size 34.0 +/- 32.4 mm) in 96 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the detection of major and ancillary imaging features between the three imaging modalities. When considering all the observations, inter-modality agreement for category assignment was substantial between CT and EOB-MRI (k 0.60; 95%CI 0.44, 0.75), moderate between CT and ECA-MRI (k 0.46; 95%CI 0.22, 0.69) and substantial between EOB-MRI and ECA-MRI (k 0.72; 95%CI 0.59, 0.85). In observations smaller than 20 mm, inter-modality agreement was fair between CT and EOB-MRI (k 0.26; 95%CI 0.05, 0.47), moderate between CT and ECA-MRI (k 0.42; 95%CI -0.02, 0.88), and substantial between EOB-MRI and ECA-MRI (k 0.65; 95%CI 0.47, 0.82). ECA-MRI demonstrated the highest sensitivity (70%) and specificity (100%) when considering LR-5 as predictor of HCC.ConclusionsInter-modality agreement between CT, ECA-MRI, and EOB-MRI decreases in observations smaller than 20 mm. ECA-MRI has the provided higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC.
引用
收藏
页码:1575 / 1586
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Contrast-Enhanced 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for the Detection of Colorectal Liver Metastases
    Seo, Hyo Jung
    Kim, Myeong-Jin
    Lee, Jong Doo
    Chung, Woo-Suk
    Kim, Yeo-Eun
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2011, 46 (09) : 548 - 555
  • [42] Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2014 With Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Validation of LI-RADS Category 4 and 5 Criteria
    Choi, Sang Hyun
    Byun, Jae Ho
    Kim, So Yeon
    Lee, So Jung
    Won, Hyung Jin
    Shin, Yong Moon
    Kim, Pyo Nyun
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2016, 51 (08) : 483 - 490
  • [43] Suboptimal performance of LI-RADS v2018 on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplant candidates
    Oh, Na Eun
    Choi, Sang Hyun
    Kim, Sehee
    Lee, Habeen
    Jang, Hyeon Ji
    Byun, Jae Ho
    Won, Hyung Jin
    Shin, Yong Moon
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (01) : 465 - 474
  • [44] The diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT versus extracellular contrast agent-enhanced MRI in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis
    Chen, Xi
    Li, Mingkai
    Guo, Ruomi
    Liu, Weimin
    Li, Jianwen
    Zong, Xiaodan
    Chen, Qilong
    Wang, Jin
    [J]. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (06) : 2057 - 2070
  • [45] Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to assess hepatocellular carcinoma response to Transarterial chemoembolization using LI-RADS criteria: A pilot study
    Thibodeau-Antonacci, Alana
    Petitclerc, Leonie
    Gilbert, Guillaume
    Bilodeau, Laurent
    Olivie, Damien
    Cerny, Milena
    Castel, Helene
    Turcotte, Simon
    Huet, Catherine
    Perreault, Pierre
    Soulez, Gilles
    Chagnon, Miguel
    Kadoury, Samuel
    Tang, An
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2019, 62 : 78 - 86
  • [46] Surveillance for malignant progression of LI-RADS version 2017 category 3/4 nodules using contrast-enhanced ultrasound
    Huang, Hui
    Li, Chao-qun
    He, Dan-ni
    Ruan, Si-min
    Lu, Ming-de
    Cheng, Mei-qing
    Lu, Ming-de
    Kuang, Ming
    Wang, Wei
    Wang, Ying
    Chen, Li-da
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2023, 33 (12) : 9336 - 9346
  • [47] Surveillance for malignant progression of LI-RADS version 2017 category 3/4 nodules using contrast-enhanced ultrasound
    Hui Huang
    Chao-qun Li
    Dan-ni He
    Si-min Ruan
    Ming-de Li
    Mei-qing Cheng
    Ming-de Lu
    Ming Kuang
    Wei Wang
    Ying Wang
    Li-da Chen
    [J]. European Radiology, 2023, 33 : 9336 - 9346
  • [48] Assessment of the link between quantitative biexponential diffusion-weighted imaging and contrast-enhanced MRI in the liver
    Dijkstra, Hildebrand
    Oudkerk, Matthijs
    Kappert, Peter
    Sijens, Paul E.
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2017, 38 : 47 - 53
  • [49] Hepatic pseudolymphoma: imaging features on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging
    Zhou, Yang
    Wang, XiaoLin
    Xu, Chen
    Zhou, GuoFeng
    Zeng, MengSu
    Xu, PengJu
    [J]. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (09) : 2288 - 2294
  • [50] Hepatic pseudolymphoma: imaging features on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging
    Yang Zhou
    XiaoLin Wang
    Chen Xu
    GuoFeng Zhou
    MengSu Zeng
    PengJu Xu
    [J]. Abdominal Radiology, 2018, 43 : 2288 - 2294