Diagnostic accuracy of liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2014 for intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinomas in patients with chronic liver disease on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI

被引:64
|
作者
Joo, Ijin [1 ,2 ]
Lee, Jeong Min [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lee, Sang Min [1 ]
Lee, Jeong Sub [1 ]
Park, Jin Young [1 ]
Han, Joon Koo [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Seoul, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Radiol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Inst Radiat Med, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
LI-RADS; intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma; portal venous phase; HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA; PATHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS; HEPATOBILIARY AGENTS; CLASSIFICATION; ALLOCATION; CIRRHOSIS; PATTERN; CT;
D O I
10.1002/jmri.25287
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 investigate the utility of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2014 for intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinomas (IMCC) on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board with waiver of informed consent. Pathologically confirmed IMCCs (n = 35) and hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) (n = 71) in patients with chronic hepatitis B or cirrhosis who had undergone gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0T or 1.5T MRI were included. Three radiologists independently assigned LI-RADS categories for each IMCC or HCC. Diagnostic performances of LR-M (probable malignancy, not specific for HCC) and LR-5/5v (definitely HCC) were investigated, and imaging features were compared between IMCCs of LR-M and non-LR-M. ResultsIn all, 88.6% (31/35), 80.0% (28/35), and 74.3% (26/35) of IMCCs and 12.7% (9/71), 22.5% (16/71), and 16.9% (12/71) of HCCs were assigned as LR-M by the three reviewers with substantial interobserver agreements (kappa = 0.664-0.741). Among IMCCs, 2.9% (1/35), 5.7% (2/35), and 11.4% (4/35) were categorized as LR-5/5v. IMCCs of non-LR-M (n = 8, using the consensus method) were significantly smaller (24.1 17.4 vs. 62.8 +/- 30.6 mm, P = 0.002) and showed higher frequencies of arterial hyperenhancement (75.0% (6/8) vs. 7.4% (2/27), P < 0.001) and lower frequencies of non-HCC malignancy-favoring features such as peripheral enhancement (12.5% (1/8) vs. 77.8% (21/27), P = 0.002) or the target appearance on the hepatobiliary phase (0% (0/8) vs. 81.5% (22/27), P < 0.001) than IMCCs of LR-M (n = 27). ConclusionUsing LI-RADS, the majority of IMCCs can be accurately categorized as LR-M on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI; however, caution is warranted, as some atypical IMCCs may be assigned as LR-5/5v resulting in a false-positive diagnosis of HCC. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1330-1338.
引用
收藏
页码:1330 / 1338
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Suboptimal performance of LI-RADS v2018 on gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma in liver transplant candidates
    Na Eun Oh
    Sang Hyun Choi
    Sehee Kim
    Habeen Lee
    Hyeon Ji Jang
    Jae Ho Byun
    Hyung Jin Won
    Yong Moon Shin
    European Radiology, 2024, 34 : 465 - 474
  • [42] Does the Functional Liver Imaging Score Derived from Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI Predict Outcomes in Chronic Liver Disease?
    Bastati, Nina
    Beer, Lucian
    Mandorfer, Mattias
    Poetter-Lang, Sarah
    Tamandl, Dietmar
    Bican, Yesim
    Elmer, Michael Christoph
    Einspieler, Henrik
    Semmler, Georg
    Simbrunner, Benedikt
    Weber, Michael
    Hodge, Jacqueline C.
    Vernuccio, Federica
    Sirlin, Claude
    Reiberger, Thomas
    Ba-Ssalamah, Ahmed
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 294 (01) : 98 - 107
  • [43] Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: A comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and multiphasic MDCT
    Baek, C. -K.
    Choi, J. -Y.
    Kim, K. -A.
    Park, M. -S.
    Lim, J. S.
    Chung, Y. E.
    Kim, M. -J.
    Kim, K. -W.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2012, 67 (02) : 148 - 156
  • [44] Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for categorising hepatic observations in patients at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma
    Li, S.
    Zhou, L.
    Chen, R.
    Chen, Y.
    Niu, Z.
    Qian, L.
    Fang, Y.
    Xu, L.
    Xu, H.
    Zhang, L.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2021, 76 (02) : 161.e1 - 161.e10
  • [45] Comparison of gadoxetic acid versus gadopentetate dimeglumine for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at 1.5 T using the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS v.2017)
    Ding, Ying
    Rao, Sheng-xiang
    Wang, Wen-tao
    Chen, Cai-zhong
    Li, Ren-chen
    Zeng, Mengsu
    CANCER IMAGING, 2018, 18
  • [46] Comparison of gadoxetic acid versus gadopentetate dimeglumine for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at 1.5 T using the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS v.2017)
    Ying Ding
    Sheng-xiang Rao
    Wen-tao Wang
    Cai-zhong Chen
    Ren-chen Li
    Mengsu Zeng
    Cancer Imaging, 18
  • [47] LI-RADS v2018: utilizing ancillary features on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI to improve the diagnostic performance of small hapatocellular carcinoma (≤ 20 mm)
    Rong Lyu
    Weijuan Hu
    Di Wang
    Jiao Wang
    Zhongsong Gao
    Kefeng Jia
    Abdominal Radiology, 2023, 48 : 1987 - 1994
  • [48] LI-RADS v2018: utilizing ancillary features on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI to improve the diagnostic performance of small hapatocellular carcinoma (=20 mm)
    Lyu, Rong
    Hu, Weijuan
    Wang, Di
    Wang, Jiao
    Gao, Zhongsong
    Jia, Kefeng
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2023, 48 (06) : 1987 - 1994
  • [49] Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Version 2018: Imaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in At-Risk Patients
    Chernyak, Victoria
    Fowler, Kathryn J.
    Kamaya, Aya
    Kielar, Ania Z.
    Elsayes, Khaled M.
    Bashir, Mustafa R.
    Kono, Yuko
    Do, Richard K.
    Mitchell, Donald G.
    Singal, Amit G.
    Tang, An
    Sirlin, Claude B.
    RADIOLOGY, 2018, 289 (03) : 816 - 830
  • [50] Double-Dose Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Chronic Liver Disease
    Motosugi, Utaroh
    Ichikawa, Tomoaki
    Sano, Katsuhiro
    Sou, Hironobu
    Onohara, Kojiro
    Muhi, Ali
    Kitamura, Takatoshi
    Amemiya, Fumitake
    Enomoto, Nobuyuki
    Matsuda, Masanori
    Asakawa, Masami
    Fujii, Hideki
    Araki, Tsutomu
    INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2011, 46 (02) : 141 - 145