Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, New York, USA.
Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, City, New York, USA.
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jun;49(7):e205-e215. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26329. Epub 2018 Sep 26.
The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is being adapted by many clinical practices. To support continuation of its use, LI-RADS (LR) is in need of multicenter validation studies of recent LI-RADS iterations. Furthermore, while both gadoxetate and extracellular agents have been incorporated into LI-RADS, comparison of the diagnostic performance between the two has yet to be determined.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To evaluate the rate, diagnostic performance, and interreader reliability (IRR) of LI-RADS 2017 for hepatocellular carcinoma, including LR major and ancillary features, with both gadoxetate and extracellular agent-enhanced MRI against a reference standard of histopathology or imaging follow-up.
Retrospective.
In all, 114 patients with 144 observations were included who met LR 2017 criteria for at risk and had at least one hepatic observation on liver MRI performed with either gadoxetate (n = 52) or an extracellular agent (n = 92) between 2010-2016, with histopathology (n = 103) or follow-up imaging (n = 41).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 and 3.0T/T -T WI, diffusion-weighted imaging.
Three radiologists independently assessed major/ancillary features and assigned overall LI-RADS category for every observation.
Diagnostic performance of LR5/TIV+LR5 for identifying hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was compared between contrast agents with a generalized estimating equation. Weighted kappa was performed for interrater reliability.
The frequency of HCCs among LR1, LR2, LR3, L4, LR5, LRTIV+LR5, and LRM observations were: 0% (all readers), 0-12.5%, 11.4-26.9%, 50-76%, 83.0-95.1%, 83.3-100.0%, and 45.0-65.0%, respectively. Sensitivity of LR5/LRTIV+LR5 for HCC was 59.7-71.4% and specificity 85.0-96.8%. LI-RADS specificity and positive predictive value for observations imaged with gadoxetate was higher than extracellular agent for the most inexperienced reader (R3) (P = 0.009-0.034). IRR for LI-RADS categorization was substantial (k = 0.661).
Increasing numerical LI-RADS 2017 categories demonstrate a greater percentage of HCCs. LR5/TIV+LR5 demonstrates excellent specificity and fair sensitivity for HCC. MRI with gadoxetate in liver transplant candidates may be beneficial for less experienced readers, although further large-scale prospective studies are needed.
4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e205-e215.
肝脏影像报告和数据系统(LI-RADS)正被许多临床实践所采用。为了支持其继续使用,LI-RADS(LR)需要对最近的 LI-RADS 迭代进行多中心验证研究。此外,尽管钆塞酸和细胞外试剂都已被纳入 LI-RADS,但两者之间的诊断性能比较尚未确定。
目的/假设:用钆塞酸和细胞外试剂增强 MRI 评估 LI-RADS 2017 对肝细胞癌的检出率、诊断性能和读者间可靠性(IRR),包括 LR 主要和辅助特征,并与组织病理学或影像学随访的参考标准进行比较。
回顾性研究。
共有 114 名患者的 144 个观察结果符合 LR 2017 高危标准,并且在 2010-2016 年间至少有一个肝脏观察结果在肝脏 MRI 上进行,这些患者使用钆塞酸(n=52)或细胞外试剂(n=92)进行检查,同时具有组织病理学(n=103)或随访影像学(n=41)。
磁场强度/序列:1.5 和 3.0T/T1-WI、弥散加权成像。
三位放射科医生独立评估了主要/辅助特征,并为每个观察结果分配了总体 LI-RADS 类别。
使用广义估计方程比较两种对比剂在识别肝细胞癌(HCC)时的 LR5/TIV+LR5 的诊断性能。使用加权kappa 进行读者间可靠性评估。
LR1、LR2、LR3、LR4、LR5、LRTIV+LR5 和 LRM 观察结果中 HCC 的频率分别为:0%(所有读者)、0-12.5%、11.4-26.9%、50-76%、83.0-95.1%、83.3-100.0%和 45.0-65.0%。LR5/LRTIV+LR5 对 HCC 的敏感性为 59.7-71.4%,特异性为 85.0-96.8%。对于最不熟练的读者(R3),钆塞酸成像的 LI-RADS 特异性和阳性预测值高于细胞外试剂(P=0.009-0.034)。LI-RADS 分类的 IRR 为中等(k=0.661)。
LI-RADS 2017 数值分类越高,肝细胞癌的比例越大。LR5/TIV+LR5 对 HCC 具有良好的特异性和适度的敏感性。对于经验较少的读者,肝移植候选者的钆塞酸 MRI 可能会更有益,尽管还需要进一步的大规模前瞻性研究。
4 技术功效:第 3 阶段 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e205-e215.