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
  • [21] Assessing Adherence to US LI-RADS Follow-up Recommendations in Vulnerable Patients Undergoing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance
    Choi, Hailey H.
    Kim, Stephanie
    Shum, Dorothy J.
    Huang, Chiung-Yu
    Shui, Amy
    Fox, Rena K.
    Khalili, Mandana
    RADIOLOGY-IMAGING CANCER, 2024, 6 (01):
  • [22] Diagnosis of Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Malignancies in Patients With Risks for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: CEUS LI-RADS Versus CT/MRI LI-RADS
    Hu, Yi-Xin
    Shen, Jing-Xian
    Han, Jing
    Mao, Si-Yue
    Mao, Ru-Shuang
    Li, Qing
    Li, Fei
    Guo, Zhi-Xing
    Zhou, Jian-Hua
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2021, 11
  • [23] Updates on LI-RADS Treatment Response Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Focusing on MRI
    Patel, Richa
    Aslam, Anum
    Parikh, Neehar D.
    Mervak, Benjamin
    Mubarak, Eman
    Higgins, Lily
    Lala, Kayli
    Conner, Jack F.
    Khaykin, Valerie
    Bashir, Mustafa
    Do, Richard Kinh Gian
    Burke, Lauren M. B.
    Smith, Elainea N.
    Kim, Charles Y.
    Shampain, Kimberly L.
    Owen, Dawn
    Mendiratta-Lala, Mishal
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2023, 57 (06) : 1641 - 1654
  • [24] Clinicoradiographic predictors of progression of an intermediate hepatic lesion (LI-RADS 3) to hepatocellular carcinoma (LI-RADS 5)
    Hannan, Lindsay M.
    Ojeda, Patricia I.
    Mieloszyk, Rebecca J.
    Harris, William P.
    Park, James O.
    Bhargava, Puneet
    HEPATOMA RESEARCH, 2021, 7 : 7 - 78
  • [25] Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma and the new LI-RADS treatment response algorithm
    Ania Kielar
    Kathryn J. Fowler
    Sara Lewis
    Vahid Yaghmai
    Frank H. Miller
    Hooman Yarmohammadi
    Charles Kim
    Victoria Chernyak
    Takeshi Yokoo
    Jeffrey Meyer
    Isabel Newton
    Richard K. Do
    Abdominal Radiology, 2018, 43 : 218 - 230
  • [26] Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma and the new LI-RADS treatment response algorithm
    Kielar, Ania
    Fowler, Kathryn J.
    Lewis, Sara
    Yaghmai, Vahid
    Miller, Frank H.
    Yarmohammadi, Hooman
    Kim, Charles
    Chernyak, Victoria
    Yokoo, Takeshi
    Meyer, Jeffrey
    Newton, Isabel
    Do, Richard K.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (01) : 218 - 230
  • [27] Diagnostic Performance of LI-RADS Version 2018, LI-RADS Version 2017, and OPTN Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Kierans, Andrea S.
    Song, Christopher
    Gavlin, Alexander
    Roudenko, Alexandra
    Lu, Lina
    Askin, Gulce
    Hecht, Elizabeth M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2020, 215 (05) : 1085 - 1092
  • [28] Evaluation of the LI-RADS treatment response algorithm in hepatocellular carcinoma after trans-arterial chemoembolization
    Kierans, Andrea S.
    Najjar, Marc
    Dutruel, Silvina P.
    Gavlin, Alexander
    Chen, Christine
    Lee, Michael J.
    Askin, Gulce
    Halazun, Karim J.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2021, 80 (80) : 117 - 122
  • [29] CEUS LI-RADS for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in individuals without LI-RADS-defined hepatocellular carcinoma risk factors
    Zhe Huang
    Ping Ping Zhou
    Shan Shan Li
    Kaiyan Li
    Cancer Imaging, 23
  • [30] Lyin' LI-RADS 5: A Case of Misdiagnosed Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Perry, Isaac E.
    Barrett, Amanda
    Ibrahim, Muaz A.
    Sharma, Amol
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 115 : S1356 - S1356