Targetoid hepatic observations on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI using LI-RADS version 2018: emphasis on hepatocellular carcinomas assigned to the LR-M category

被引:21
|
作者
Park, H. J. [1 ]
Kim, Y. K. [2 ,3 ]
Cha, D., I [2 ,3 ]
Ko, S. E. [2 ,3 ]
Kim, S. [2 ,3 ]
Lee, E. S. [1 ]
Ahn, S. [4 ]
机构
[1] Chung Ang Univ, Chung Ang Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Samsung Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Sch Med, 50 Ilwon Dong, Seoul 135710, South Korea
[3] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Samsung Med Ctr, Ctr Imaging Sci, Sch Med, 50 Ilwon Dong, Seoul 135710, South Korea
[4] Ajou Univ, Dept Math, Suwon, South Korea
关键词
DIFFUSION-WEIGHTED IMAGES; INTRAHEPATIC CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA; HEPATOBILIARY PHASE; LIVER; CAPSULE; CT; DIFFERENTIATION; CONTRAST; FEATURES; SEPTUM;
D O I
10.1016/j.crad.2020.01.002
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
AIM: To determine useful imaging features for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) categorised as LR-M from non-HCC malignancies in using the Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients at high-risk for HCC with surgically confirmed HCCs (n=131) and non-HCC malignancies (n=90) and who had undergone gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI were included. LI-RADS categories were assigned to identify hepatic observations defined as LR-M by two radiologists. Major and ancillary imaging features of hepatic observation with targetoid appearance including intratumoural septa were compared between HCCs and non-HCC malignancies. A classification tree analysis (CTA) was applied to differentiate high-risk HCCs from non-HCC malignancies in the LR-M category. RESULTS: A total of 36 HCCs (27.5%) and 70 non-HCC malignancies (77.8%) were assigned as LR-M. An enhancing capsule (p=0.0293), blood products in the mass (p=0.0393), non-targetoid restriction (p=0.018), and a septum (p=0.0053) were significantly predictive of HCC. On CTA, the presence of a septum was an initial predictor for a high probability of HCC followed by non-targetoid restriction. The CTA model has a sensitivity of 63.9%, specificity of 90%, and accuracy of 81.1% for differentiating HCC assigned LR-M from non-HCC malignancy. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of HCCs could have been categorised as LR-M as they had a targetoid appearance on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. An intratumoural septum and non-targetoid restriction as well as enhancing capsule and blood products in the mass may be useful for differentiating HCC assigned to LR-M from non-HCC malignancy on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists.
引用
收藏
页码:478.e13 / 478.e23
页数:11
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [1] LI-RADS M (LR-M) criteria and reporting algorithm of v2018: diagnostic values in the assessment of primary liver cancers on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI
    Kim, Min Young
    Joo, Ijin
    Kang, Hyo Jin
    Seok, Jae
    Jeon, Sun Kyung
    Lee, Jeong Min
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2020, 45 (08) : 2440 - 2448
  • [2] Preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI predicts aggressive pathological features in LI-RADS category 5 hepatocellular carcinoma
    Liang, X.
    Shi, S.
    Gao, T.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 77 (09) : 708 - 716
  • [3] 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
  • [4] LI-RADS Classification and Prognosis of Primary Liver Cancers at Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI
    Choi, Sang Hyun
    Lee, Seung Soo
    Park, So Hyun
    Kim, Kang Mo
    Yu, Eunsil
    Park, Yangsoon
    Shin, Yong Moon
    Lee, Moon-Gyu
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 290 (02) : 388 - 397
  • [5] Optimal lexicon of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma modified from LI-RADS
    Hwang, Shin Hye
    Park, Sumi
    Han, Kyunghwa
    Choi, Jin-young
    Park, Young-Nyun
    Park, Mi-Suk
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2019, 44 (09) : 3078 - 3088
  • [6] Prognosis after Curative Resection of Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma with A Focus on LI-RADS Targetoid Appearance on Preoperative Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI
    Moon, Ji Yoon
    Min, Ji Hye
    Kim, Young Kon
    Cha, Donglk
    Hwang, Jeong Ah
    Ko, Seong Eun
    Choi, Seo-Youn
    Yun, Eun Joo
    Kim, Seon Woo
    Won, Ho-Jeong
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 22 (11) : 1786 - 1796
  • [7] Can modified LI-RADS increase the sensitivity of LI-RADS v2018 for the diagnosis of 10-19 mm hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI?
    Xie, Sidong
    Zhang, Yao
    Chen, Jingbiao
    Jiang, Ting
    Liu, Weimin
    Rong, Dailin
    Sun, Lin
    Zhang, Linqi
    He, Bingjun
    Wang, Jin
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (02) : 596 - 607
  • [8] LI-RADS v2014 categorization of hepatocellular carcinoma: Intraindividual comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI
    Song, Ji Soo
    Choi, Eun Jung
    Hwang, Seung Bae
    Hwang, Hong Pil
    Choi, HyeMi
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2019, 29 (01) : 401 - 410
  • [9] 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
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2024, 34 (01) : 465 - 474
  • [10] LI-RADS category 5 hepatocellular carcinoma: preoperative gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for early recurrence risk stratification after curative resection
    Wei, Hong
    Jiang, Hanyu
    Zheng, Tianying
    Zhang, Zhen
    Yang, Caiwei
    Ye, Zheng
    Duan, Ting
    Song, Bin
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (04) : 2289 - 2302