Evaluation of LI-RADS Version 2018 Treatment Response Algorithm for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Liver Transplant Candidates: Intraindividual Comparison between CT and Hepatobiliary Agent-enhanced MRI

被引:15
|
作者
Bae, Jae Seok [1 ,3 ]
Lee, Jeong Min [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Yoon, Jeong Hee [1 ,3 ]
Kang, Hyo-Jin [1 ,3 ]
Jeon, Sun Kyung [1 ,3 ]
Joo, Ijin [1 ,3 ]
Lee, Kyoung Bun [2 ]
Kim, Haeryoung [2 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, 101 Daehak Ro, Seoul 03080, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, 101 Daehak Ro, Seoul 03080, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Radiol, Coll Med, Seoul, South Korea
[4] Seoul Natl Univ, Med Res Ctr, Inst Radiat Med, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
TRANSARTERIAL CHEMOEMBOLIZATION; ARTERIAL CHEMOEMBOLIZATION; BRIDGE;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2021203537
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
Background: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), version 2018, treatment response algorithm (TRA) is used to assess hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after local-regional therapy (LRT). However, its diagnostic performance has not yet been fully compared between CT and hepatobiliary agent (HBA)-enhanced MRI in patients who have undergone liver transplant (LT). Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS TRA when using CT versus using HBA-enhanced MRI in an intraindividual manner according to pathologic results. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and September 2019, 165 patients with 237 clinically suspected HCCs underwent LRT followed by LT and were retrospectively included. All patients underwent both CT and HBA-enhanced MRI after LRT and before LT. Three radiologists independently assessed tumor viability with both modalities by using LI-RADS TRA and reached a consensus. Pathologic tumor viability categorized as either completely (100%) or incompletely (<100%) necrotic obtained from the explanted liver served as the reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity of the LI-RADS TRA in the consensus reading were then compared between CT and HBA-enhanced MRI by using the ratio estimator approach. Interobserver agreements were calculated by using Fleiss k statistics. Results: There were 165 patients (mean age, 62 years 6 9 [standard deviation]; 135 men) with a total of 237 lesions, of which 107 were viable tumors (45.1%) at pathologic evaluation. With the LI-RADS TRA, sensitivity and specificity of the viable category for detection of viable HCCs at pathologic evaluation were 42.1% (45 of 107 lesions) and 95.4% (124 of 130 lesions) with CT and 52.3% (56 of 107 lesions) and 93.9% (122 of 130 lesions) with HBA-enhanced MRI, with a significant difference in sensitivity butnot specificity (P =.009 and P =.42, respectively). Interobserver agreements for the LI-RADS TRA were substantial for both CTand HBA-enhanced MRI (k, 0.69 for both). Conclusion: In patients who underwent local-regional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplant, hepatobiliary agent-enhanced MRI was more sensitive than CT in evaluating tumor viability with the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2018, treatment response algorithm. (C) RSNA, 2021
引用
收藏
页码:336 / 345
页数:10
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] The LI-RADS Version 2018 MRI Treatment Response Algorithm: Evaluation of Ablated Hepatocellular Carcinoma
    Chaudhry, Mohammad
    McGinty, Katrina A.
    Mervak, Benjamin
    Lerebours, Reginald
    Li, Cai
    Shropshire, Erin
    Ronald, James
    Commander, Leah
    Hertel, Johann
    Luo, Sheng
    Bashir, Mustafa R.
    Burke, Lauren M. B.
    RADIOLOGY, 2020, 294 (02) : 320 - 326
  • [2] 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
  • [3] Comparison of Gadobenate-Enhanced MRI and Gadoxetate-Enhanced MRI for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Detection Using LI-RADS Version 2018: A Prospective Intraindividual Randomized Study
    Rong, Dailin
    He, Bingjun
    Tang, Wenjie
    Xie, Sidong
    Kuang, Sichi
    Grazioli, Luigi
    Hussain, Shahid M.
    Yang, Yang
    Wang, Jin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2022, 218 (04) : 687 - 698
  • [4] 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
  • [5] LI-RADS Version 2017 versus Version 2018: Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Gadoxetate Disodium enhanced MRI
    Lee, Sang Min
    Lee, Jeong Min
    Ahn, Su Joa
    Kang, Hyo-Jin
    Yang, Hyun Kyung
    Yoon, Jeong Hee
    RADIOLOGY, 2019, 292 (03) : 655 - 663
  • [6] Performance of LI-RADS version 2018 CT treatment response algorithm in tumor response evaluation and survival prediction of patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma after radiofrequency ablation
    Zhang, Yun
    Wang, Jinju
    Li, Hui
    Zheng, Tianying
    Jiang, Hanyu
    Li, Mou
    Song, Bin
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2020, 8 (06)
  • [8] CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2018 versus CEUS LI-RADS version 2017 in the diagnosis of primary hepatic nodules in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma
    Lv, Kun
    Cao, Xin
    Dong, Yinlei
    Geng, Daoying
    Zhang, Jun
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2021, 9 (13)
  • [9] VALUE OF CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND LI-RADS 2017 IN PATIENTS AT HIGH RISK OF HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA: A COMPARISON STUDY WITH CT/MRI LI-RADS
    Ding, Jianmin
    Zhou, Yan
    Jing, Xiang
    HEPATOLOGY, 2020, 72 : 687A - 687A
  • [10] Value of CT and MR Imaging in Assessment of Loco-regional Ablated Hepatocellular Carcinoma using LI-RADS Treatment Response Algorithm (version 2018)
    Zarad, Carmen Ali
    Elagawy, Waleed
    Hasan, Basma Badreldin
    Abd-Elsalam, Sherief
    Shanab, Waleed Abo S.
    CURRENT CANCER THERAPY REVIEWS, 2023, 19 (03) : 260 - 270