Published 2022 | Version v1
Journal article

What proportion of LI-RADS 5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LI-RADS 5 criteria?

  • 1. Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MA (United States)
  • 2. Department of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY (United States)
  • 3. Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA (United States)
  • 4. Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (United States)

Description

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) category 5 (definite hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) is assigned based on combinations of major imaging features (MFs): size, arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE), washout (WO), enhancing capsule, and threshold growth. The criteria were simplified in v2018 compared to v2017. The goal of this study is to assess the proportion of LR-5 observations reported in clinical practice with LI-RADS v2017 or v2018 that did not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported MFs. All MR and CT reports using a standardized LI-RADS template between April 2017 and September 2020 were identified retrospectively. For each reported LR-5 observation, size, MFs, and LI-RADS version (v2017 or v2018) were extracted. Reported MFs were used to determine whether LR-5 criteria were met using the applied version of LI-RADS. The data was summarized descriptively. Three hundred eight observations in 234 patients (67.6% male, mean age 66.2 years) were reported as LR-5, including 136 (44.2%) with v2017 and 172 (55.8%) with v2018. 8/136 (6%) v2017 LR-5 observations and 6/172 (3%) v2018 LR-5 observations did not meet LR-5 criteria. Of 8 incorrectly categorized v2017 observations, 3 (43%) lacked APHE, 1 (14%) was a 16-mm new observation with APHE only, and 4 (43%) were 10-19 mm with APHE and WO. Of the 6 incorrectly categorized v2018 observations, 5 (83%) lacked APHE and 1 (17%) was < 10 mm. Depending on the LI-RADS version, 3-6% of LR-5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported MFs. Depending on the LI-RADS version, 3-6% of LR-5 observations in clinical practice do not meet LR-5 criteria based on reported major imaging features. Assigning LR-5 category to observations without nonrim arterial-phase hyperenhancement was the most common error.

Availability note (English)

Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08389-5

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
European Radiology (Internet)
Journal Volume
32
Journal Issue
5
Journal Page Range
p. 3327-3333
ISSN
1432-1084
CODEN
EURAE3

INIS

Country of Publication
Germany
Country of Input or Organization
Germany
INIS RN
53062289
Subject category
S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
Resource subtype / Literary indicator
Numerical Data
Descriptors DEI
CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; COMPILED DATA; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DATA BASE MANAGEMENT; ERRORS; HEPATOMAS; IMAGE PROCESSING; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; LIVER
Descriptors DEC
BODY; CARCINOMAS; DATA; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; DIGESTIVE SYSTEM; DISEASES; EVALUATION; GLANDS; INFORMATION; MANAGEMENT; NEOPLASMS; NUMERICAL DATA; ORGANS; PROCESSING; TOMOGRAPHY