Suboptimal performance of LI-RADS v2018 on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplant candidates

被引:1
|
作者
Oh, Na Eun [1 ,2 ]
Choi, Sang Hyun [1 ,2 ]
Kim, Sehee [3 ]
Lee, Habeen [4 ]
Jang, Hyeon Ji [1 ,2 ]
Byun, Jae Ho [1 ,2 ]
Won, Hyung Jin [1 ,2 ]
Shin, Yong Moon [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ulsan, Dept Radiol, Coll Med, Asan Med Ctr, 88 Olymp Ro 43 Gil, Seoul 05505, South Korea
[2] Univ Ulsan, Res Inst Radiol, Coll Med, Asan Med Ctr, 88 Olymp Ro 43 Gil, Seoul 05505, South Korea
[3] Asan Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Seoul 05505, South Korea
[4] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Seoul 05505, South Korea
关键词
Liver; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Transplantation; Magnetic resonance imaging; Gadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPA; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; MILAN CRITERIA; CT; ALLOCATION;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-023-10014-6
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 evaluate the diagnostic performance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, comparing liver transplant candidates (LT group) with patients who underwent surgical resection (SR group), and to determine significant clinical factors for diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018.MethodsPatients who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and subsequent SR or LT for HCC were retrospectively included between January 2019 and December 2020. The sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS LR-5 for HCC were compared between the two groups using generalized estimating equations. The accuracy of patient allocation according to the Milan criteria was calculated for the LT group. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine significant clinical factors associated with the sensitivity of LI-RADS.ResultsOf the 281 patients, 237 were assigned to the SR group, and 44 were assigned to the LT group. The LT group showed significantly lower per-patient (48.5% vs. 79.6%, p < .001) and per-lesion sensitivity (31.0% vs. 75.9%, p < .001) than the SR group, whereas no significant difference in both per-patient (100.0% vs. 91.7%, p > .99) and per-lesion specificities (100.0% vs. 94.1%, p > .99). The accuracy of patient allocation was 50.0%. Sensitivity was significantly lower in patients with a smaller lesion size (p < .001), a larger lesion number (p = .002), and a higher Child-Pugh score (p = .009).ConclusionLI-RADS v2018 on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI might be insufficient in liver transplant candidates and other diagnostic imaging tests should be considered in patients with these significant clinical factors.
引用
收藏
页码:465 / 474
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Effect of combining serum alpha-fetoprotein with LI-RADS v2018 on gadoxetate-enhanced MRI in the diagnosis and prognostication of hepatocellular carcinoma
    Kim, Dong Hwan
    Choi, Sang Hyun
    Koo, Boyeon
    Choi, Se Jin
    Jang, Hyeon Ji
    Heo, Subin
    Byun, Jae Ho
    Won, Hyung Jin
    Shin, Yong Moon
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2025,
  • [32] LI-RADS treatment response categorization on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: diagnostic performance compared to mRECIST and added value of ancillary features
    Kim, Se Woo
    Joo, Ijin
    Kim, Hyo-Cheol
    Ahn, Su Joa
    Kang, Hyo-Jin
    Jeon, Sun Kyung
    Lee, Jeong Min
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2020, 30 (05) : 2861 - 2870
  • [33] Optimal lexicon of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma modified from LI-RADS
    Shin Hye Hwang
    Sumi Park
    Kyunghwa Han
    Jin-young Choi
    Young-Nyun Park
    Mi-Suk Park
    Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 3078 - 3088
  • [34] Targetoid hepatic observations on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI using LI-RADS version 2018: emphasis on hepatocellular carcinomas assigned to the LR-M category
    Park, H. J.
    Kim, Y. K.
    Cha, D., I
    Ko, S. E.
    Kim, S.
    Lee, E. S.
    Ahn, S.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 75 (06) : 478.e13 - 478.e23
  • [35] Hepatic Steatosis Has No Effect in Diagnosis Accuracy of LI-RADS v2018 Categorization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in MR Imaging
    Yao, Shan
    Wei, Yi
    Ye, Zheng
    Chen, Jie
    Duan, Ting
    Zhang, Zhen
    Song, Bin
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2024, 59 (06) : 2060 - 2070
  • [36] Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: LI-RADS v2017 categorisation for differential diagnosis and prognostication on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging
    Sun Kyung Jeon
    Ijin Joo
    Dong Ho Lee
    Sang Min Lee
    Hyo-Jin Kang
    Kyoung-Bun Lee
    Jeong Min Lee
    European Radiology, 2019, 29 : 373 - 382
  • [37] LI-RADS Version 2018 Targetoid Appearances on Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI: Interobserver Agreement and Diagnostic Performance for the Differentiation of HCC and Non-HCC Malignancy
    Min, Ji Hye
    Lee, Min Woo
    Park, Hee Sun
    Lee, Dong Ho
    Park, Hyun Jeong
    Lee, Ji Eun
    Park, Sae-Jin
    Kim, Seung-Seob
    Park, Seung Hyun
    Ha, Sang Yun
    Hwang, Jeong Ah
    Cha, Dong Ik
    Park, Boram
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 219 (03) : 421 - 432
  • [38] Prognostic Performance of Preoperative Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI in Resectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Shim, Ju Hyun
    Han, Seungbong
    Shin, Yong Moon
    Lee, Young-Joo
    Lee, Sung-Gyu
    Kim, Kang Mo
    Lim, Young-Suk
    Lee, Han Chu
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2015, 41 (04) : 1115 - 1123
  • [39] Gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of hepatocellular carcinoma occurring in liver transplants
    Kim, Mimi
    Kang, Tae Wook
    Jeong, Woo Kyoung
    Kim, Young Kon
    Kim, Seong Hyun
    Kim, Jong Man
    Sinn, Dong Hyun
    Kim, Min-Ji
    Jung, Sin-ho
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (08) : 3117 - 3127
  • [40] Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: Reliability and agreement for assessing hepatocellular carcinoma locoregional treatment response
    Abdelrahman, Ahmed S.
    Ekladious, Mena E. Y.
    Badran, Ethar M.
    Madkour, Sherihan S.
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2022, 103 (11) : 524 - 534