US LI-RADS in surveillance for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after curative treatment

被引:1
|
作者
Huang, Hui [1 ]
Cheng, Mei-Qing [1 ]
He, Dan-Ni [1 ,2 ]
Xian, Meng-Fei [1 ]
Zeng, Dan [1 ]
Wu, Shao-Hong [1 ]
Li, Chao-Qun [1 ,3 ]
Ruan, Si-Min [1 ]
Li, Ming-De [1 ]
Lin, Man-Xia [1 ]
Lu, Ming-De [1 ,4 ]
Kuang, Ming [1 ,4 ]
Wang, Wei [1 ]
Chen, Li-Da [1 ]
机构
[1] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Inst Diagnost & Intervent Ultrasound, Dept Med Ultrason,Ultrasom Artificial Intelligenc, 58 Zhongshan Rd 2, Guangzhou 510080, Peoples R China
[2] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Affiliated Hosp 7, Dept Med Ultrason, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
[3] Sichuan Univ, Dept Ultrasound Med, West China Xiamen Hosp, Xiamen, Peoples R China
[4] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Hepatobiliary Surg, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Hepatocellular carcinoma; Recurrence; Surveillance; Ultrasound; CLINICAL-PRACTICE GUIDELINES; ATTENTION NETWORK; PREDICTION METHOD; MANAGEMENT; ULTRASOUND; DIAGNOSIS; ACCURACY; CRITERIA; NODULES; UPDATE;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-023-09903-7
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
ObjectivesTo investigate the performance of US LI-RADS in surveillance for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) after curative treatment.Materials and methodsThis study enrolled 644 patients between January 2018 and August 2018 as a derivation cohort, and 397 patients from September 2018 to December 2018 as a validation cohort. The US surveillance after HCC curative treatment was performed. The US LI-RADS observation categories and visualization scores were analyzed. Four criteria using US LI-RADS or Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) as the surveillance algorithm were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.ResultsA total of 212 (32.9%) patients in derivation cohort and 158 (39.8%) patients in validation cohort were detected to have RHCCs. The criterion of US-2/3 or AFP & GE; 20 & mu;g/L had higher sensitivity (derivation, 96.7% vs 92.9% vs 81.1% vs 90.6%; validation, 96.2% vs 90.5% vs 80.4% vs 89.9%) and NPV (derivation, 95.7% vs 93.3% vs 88.0% vs 91.8%; validation, 94.6% vs 89.4% vs 83.6% vs 89.0%), but lower specificity (derivation, 35.9% vs 48.2% vs 67.6% vs 51.9%; validation, 43.5% vs 52.7% vs 66.1% vs 54.0%) than criterion of US-2/3, US-3, and US-3 or AFP & GE; 20 & mu;g/L. Analysis of the visualization score subgroups confirmed that the sensitivity (89.2-97.6% vs 81.0-83.3%) and NPV(88.4-98.0% vs 80.0-83.3%) of score A and score B groups were higher than score C group in criterion of US-2/3 in both two cohorts.ConclusionsIn the surveillance for RHCC, US LI-RADS with AFP had a high sensitivity and NPV when US-2/3 or AFP & GE; 20 & mu;g/L was considered a criterion.
引用
收藏
页码:9357 / 9367
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] US LI-RADS in surveillance for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after curative treatment
    Hui Huang
    Mei-Qing Cheng
    Dan-Ni He
    Meng-Fei Xian
    Dan Zeng
    Shao-Hong Wu
    Chao-Qun Li
    Si-Min Ruan
    Ming-De Li
    Man-Xia Lin
    Ming-De Lu
    Ming Kuang
    Wei Wang
    Li-Da Chen
    European Radiology, 2023, 33 : 9357 - 9367
  • [2] Diagnostic performance of US LI-RADS in hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance
    Ahmed Haitham Abduljabbar
    Mohammad A. Wazzan
    Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 54
  • [3] Diagnostic performance of US LI-RADS in hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance
    Abduljabbar, Ahmed Haitham
    Wazzan, Mohammad A.
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2023, 54 (01)
  • [4] US LI-RADS: ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system for screening and surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma
    Morgan, Tara A.
    Maturen, Katherine E.
    Dahiya, Nirvikar
    Sun, Maryellen R. M.
    Kamaya, Aya
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (01) : 41 - 55
  • [5] LI-RADS US Surveillance Version 2024 for Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Update to the American College of US LI-RADS
    Kamaya, Aya
    Fetzer, David T.
    Seow, James H.
    Burrowes, David P.
    Choi, Hailey H.
    Dawkins, Adrian A.
    Fung, Christopher
    Gabriel, Helena
    Hong, Cheng William
    Khurana, Aman
    Mcgillen, Kathryn L.
    Morgan, Tara A.
    Sirlin, Claude B.
    Tse, Justin R.
    Rodgers, Shuchi K.
    RADIOLOGY, 2024, 313 (03)
  • [6] Role of US LI-RADS in the LI-RADS Algorithm
    Rodgers, Shuchi K.
    Fetzer, David T.
    Gabriel, Helena
    Seow, James H.
    Choi, Hailey H.
    Maturen, Katherine E.
    Wasnik, Ashish P.
    Morgan, Tara A.
    Dahiya, Nirvikar
    O'Boyle, Mary K.
    Kono, Yuko
    Sirlin, Claude B.
    Kamaya, Aya
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2019, 39 (03) : 690 - 708
  • [7] US LI-RADS: ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system for screening and surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma
    Tara A. Morgan
    Katherine E. Maturen
    Nirvikar Dahiya
    Maryellen R. M. Sun
    Aya Kamaya
    Abdominal Radiology, 2018, 43 : 41 - 55
  • [8] LI-RADS and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma
    Tang, An
    Fowler, Kathryn J.
    Chernyak, Victoria
    Chapman, William C.
    Sirlin, Claude B.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (01) : 193 - 202
  • [9] Accuracy of the diagnostic evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma with LI-RADS
    Liu, Weimin
    Qin, Jie
    Guo, Ruomi
    Xie, Sidong
    Jiang, Hang
    Wang, Xiaohong
    Kang, Zhuang
    Wang, Jin
    Shan, Hong
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2018, 59 (02) : 140 - 146
  • [10] Comparison of modified CEUS LI-RADS with sonazoid and CT/MRI LI-RADS for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma
    Sugimoto, Katsutoshi
    Saito, Kazuhiro
    Shirota, Natsuhiko
    Kamiyama, Naohisa
    Sakamaki, Kentaro
    Takahashi, Hiroshi
    Wada, Takuya
    Kakegawa, Tatsuya
    Tomita, Yusuke
    Abe, Masakazu
    Yoshimasu, Yu
    Takeuchi, Hirohito
    Itoi, Takao
    HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH, 2022, 52 (08) : 730 - 738