Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: comparison between computed tomography and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (original) (raw)

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the consistency of major hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) features between CT and MRI based on Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 and to investigate the additional value on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.

Materials and methods

Patients who underwent dynamic CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI within 1 month were investigated. Two radiologists evaluated the presence of major HCC features and categorized observations using LI-RADS v2018 algorithm. In addition, each observation was recorded as hyper-, iso-, or hypo-intensity on hepatobiliary-phase (HBP) images.

Results

Sixty-one patients with 110 observations were identified. Among 88 observations classified as LR-3, 4 or 5, arterial phase hyper-enhancement and washout appearance showed higher frequencies on CT than on MRI (75.0% vs. 58.0%, P < 0.001, and 60.2% vs. 44.3%, P = 0.014, respectively). Of the 59 LR-3 observations categorized on MRI, 70.0% of observations with hypo-intensity on HBP images were HCCs, whereas 89.5% of observations with iso- or hyper-intensity on HBP images were non-HCCs (P < 0.001)

Conclusion

The frequencies of arterial phase hyper-enhancement and washout appearances were higher on CT than on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. For LR-3 observations, adding the hepatobiliary-phase hypo-intensity to major features improved the diagnostic performance of MRI in distinguishing HCCs from non-HCC lesions.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Purysko AS, Remer EM, Coppa CP, Filho lHM, Thupili CR, Veniero JC. LI-RADS: a case-based review of the new categorization of liver findings in patients with end-stage liver disease. Radiographics. 2012;32(7):1977–95.
  2. Bota S, Piscaglia F, Marinelli S, Pecorelli A, Terzi E, Bolondi L. Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer. 2012;1(3–4):190–200.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  3. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology (Baltimore, MD). 2011;53(3):1020–2.
    Article Google Scholar
  4. American College of Radiology. Liver imaging reporting and data system. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS.
  5. Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB. LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology (Baltimore, MD). 2015;61(3):1056–65.
    Article Google Scholar
  6. Corwin MT, Fananapazir G, Jin M, Lamba R, Bashir MR. Differences in liver imaging and reporting data system categorization between MRI and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(2):307–12.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  7. Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X, Wang Q, Wu CJ, Liu XS, et al. Liver imaging reporting and data system: substantial discordance between CT and MR for imaging classification of hepatic nodules. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(3):344–52.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Marin D, Di Martino M, Guerrisi A, De Filippis G, Rossi M, Ginanni Corradini S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: qualitative comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging and multiphasic 64-section CT. Radiology. 2009;251(1):85–95.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Pitton MB, Kloeckner R, Herber S, Otto G, Kreitner KF, Dueber C. MRI versus 64-row MDCT for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol WJG. 2009;15(48):6044–51.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  10. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Ahn SJ, Lee ES, Han JK. Liver imaging reporting and data system v2014 categorization of hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: comparison with multiphasic multidetector computed tomography. J Magn Reson Imag JMRI. 2017;45(3):731–40.
    Article Google Scholar
  11. Tanabe M, Kanki A, Wolfson T, Costa EA, Mamidipalli A, Ferreira MP, et al. Imaging outcomes of liver imaging reporting and data system version 2014 Category 2, 3, and 4 observations detected at CT and MR Imaging. Radiology. 2016;281(1):129–39.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  12. Hope TA, Aslam R, Weinstein S, Yeh BM, Corvera CU, Monto A, et al. Change in liver imaging reporting and data system characterization of focal liver lesions using gadoxetate disodium magnetic resonance imaging compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017;41(3):376–81.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  13. Cruite I, Tang A, Mamidipalli A, Shah A, Santillan C, Sirlin CB. Liver imaging reporting and data system: review of major imaging features. Semin Roentgenol. 2016;51(4):292–300.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  14. Hope TA, Fowler KJ, Sirlin CB, Costa EA, Yee J, Yeh BM, et al. Hepatobiliary agents and their role in LI-RADS. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(3):613–25.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  15. An C, Rakhmonova G, Choi JY, Kim MJ. Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) version 2014: understanding and application of the diagnostic algorithm. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2016;22(2):296–307.
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  16. Choi JY, Cho HC, Sun M, Kim HC, Sirlin CB. Indeterminate observations (liver imaging reporting and data system category 3) on MRI in the cirrhotic liver: fate and clinical implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(5):993–1001.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  17. Chen N, Motosugi U, Morisaka H, Ichikawa S, Sano K, Ichikawa T, et al. Added value of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatocyte-phase image to the LI-RADS system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2016;15(1):49–59.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  18. Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, Iijima H, Kadoya M, Imai Y. Surveillance and diagnostic algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma proposed by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan: 2014 update. Oncology. 2014;87(Suppl 1):7–21.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  19. Nakamura S, Nakaura T, Kidoh M, Utsunomiya D, Doi Y, Harada K, et al. Timing of the hepatic arterial phase at Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced hepatic dynamic MRI: comparison of the test-injection and the fixed-time delay method. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38(3):548–54.
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  20. Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Nagai K, Tohyama J, Kawamura K, Yoshida M, et al. Evaluation of tumor recurrence after superselective conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: Comparison of computed tomography and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Hepatol Res. 2016;46(9):890–8.
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Minami Kogushi, Ube, 755-8505, Yamaguchi, Japan
    Sei Nakao, Masahiro Tanabe, Munemasa Okada, Matakazu Furukawa, Etsushi Iida, Keisuke Miyoshi, Naofumi Matsunaga & Katsuyoshi Ito

Authors

  1. Sei Nakao
  2. Masahiro Tanabe
  3. Munemasa Okada
  4. Matakazu Furukawa
  5. Etsushi Iida
  6. Keisuke Miyoshi
  7. Naofumi Matsunaga
  8. Katsuyoshi Ito

Corresponding author

Correspondence toMasahiro Tanabe.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our institution.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Cite this article

Nakao, S., Tanabe, M., Okada, M. et al. Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: comparison between computed tomography and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Jpn J Radiol 37, 651–659 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-019-00855-x

Download citation

Keywords