Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions Using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System

Wang, Jiayu; Feng, Shao-Yang; Yi, Aijiao; Zhu, Di; Xu, Jianwei; Li, Jun; Cui, Xin-Wu; Dietrich, Christoph F.

doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.01.023

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The flow diagram of the study selection is shown in Figure 1 and the details of excluded studies are given in Supplementary Table S3. Among 39 studies, nine records [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] demonstrated the accuracy for HCC diagnosis of CEUS LR5, and 31 [20, evaluated that of CT/MRI LR5, while eight records [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] evaluated the performance of CEUS LRM for characterizing OM and 19 reported [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] that of CT/MRI LRM.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis

Peng

Zhou

2021

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is a comprehensive system for standardizing liver imaging in patients at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS category 5 (LR5) for diagnosing HCC and LI-RADS category M (LRM) for characterizing other non-HCC malignancies (OM) using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Multiple databases were searched for articles evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS and/or CT/MRI LI-RADS. A random-effects model was adopted to synthesize the summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of LR5 for diagnosing HCC and LRM for characterizing OM using CEUS and CT/MRI. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS LR5 for the diagnosis of HCC were 69% and 93%, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 67% and the specificity, 93% of CT/MRI LR5 for HCC diagnosis. There was no significant difference between the overall diagnostic accuracy for HCC diagnosis of CEUS LR5 and that of CT/MRI LR5 in terms of diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (p = 0.55). The sensitivity was 84% with a specificity of 90% in the CEUS LRM for characterizing OM, while the sensitivity and specificity of CT/MRI LRM for characterizing OM was 63% and 95%. The DOR of CEUS LRM for characterizing OM was higher than that of CT/MRI LRM without significant difference (50.59 vs. 36.06, p = 0.34). This meta-analysis indicated that CEUS LI-RADS is qualified to characterize HCC and OM and may provide complementary information on liver nodules to CT/MRI LI-RADS.

show abstract

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis

Peng

Zhou

2021

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High specificity of LR-5 for HCC and high sensitivity of LR-M for non-HCC malignancies are required to meet the purpose of LI-RADS on achieving accurate diagnosis, which helps to choose the proper treatments. Several previous studies have proved that there were no significant difference in the specificity of LR-5 for HCC between CEUS LI-RADS and CT/MR LI-RADS (18,19,21), however, studies directly focusing on the sensitivity of LR-M for non-HCC malignancies between these two algorithms remained limited. Thus, this retrospective study investigated the sensitivity of LR-M for non-HCC malignancies in a relatively large sample of non-HCC malignancies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to maintain the specificity of LR-5 for HCC, the category of LR-M is intended to encompass non-HCC malignancies as much as possible (17). Previous studies have showed no significant difference in the specificity of LR-5 for HCC between CEUS LI-RADS and CT/MR LI-RADS (93.8% of CEUS vs 83.3% of CT/ MRI, p = 0.109) (18), however, the sensitivity of LR-M for non-HCC malignancies between these two algorithms has not been fully evaluated due to the limited cases of non-HCC malignancies (18,19). Thus, our study aimed to compare the sensitivity of LR-M for non-HCC primary hepatic malignancies in patients with risks and evaluate the inter-modality agreement between these two standardized algorithms with large sample of non-HCC malignancies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis of Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Malignancies in Patients With Risks for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: CEUS LI-RADS Versus CT/MRI LI-RADS

Shen

Mao

et al. 2021

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveData regarding direct comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and Computed Tomography/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CT/MR) LI-RADS in diagnosis of non-hepatocelluar carcinoma (non-HCC) malignancies remain limited. Our study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the CEUS LI-RADS version 2017 and CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 for diagnosing non-HCC malignancies in patients with risks for HCC.Materials and MethodsIn this retrospective study, 94 liver nodules pathologically-confirmed as non-HCC malignancies in 92 patients at risks for HCC from January 2009 to December 2018 were enrolled. The imaging features and the LI-RADS categories on corresponding CEUS and CT/MRI within 1 month were retrospectively analyzed according to the ACR CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and ACR CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 by two radiologists in consensus for each algorithm. The sensitivity of LR-M category, inter-reader agreement and inter-modality agreement was compared between these two standardized algorithms.ResultsNinety-four nodules in 92 patients (mean age, 54 years ± 10 [standard deviation] with 65 men [54 years ± 11] and 27 women [54 years ± 8]), including 56 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, 34 combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinomas, two adenosquamous carcinomas of the liver, one primary hepatic neuroendocrine carcinoma and one hepatic undifferentiated sarcoma were included. On CEUS, numbers of lesions classified as LR-3, LR-4, LR-5 and LR-M were 0, 1, 10 and 83, and on CT/MRI, the corresponding numbers were 3, 0, 14 and 77. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity of LR-M between these two standardized algorithms (88.3% of CEUS vs 81.9% of CT/MRI, p = 0.210). Seventy-seven lesions (81.9%) were classified as the same LI-RADS categories by both standardized algorithms (five for LR-5 and 72 for LR-M, kappa value = 0.307). In the subgroup analysis for ICC and CHC, no significant differences were found in the sensitivity of LR-M category between these two standardized algorithms (for ICC, 94.6% of CEUS vs 89.3% of CT/MRI, p = 0.375; for CHC, 76.5% of CEUS vs 70.6% of CT/MRI, p = 0. 649).ConclusionCEUS LI-RADS v2017 and CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 showed similar value for diagnosing non-HCC primary hepatic malignancies in patients with risks.

show abstract

“…acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS). Recently, LI-RADS algorithms and diagnostic tables have been developed for ultrasonography (US) and contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) Ultrasonography 39(3), July 2020 e-ultrasonography.org [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. According to the LI-RADS guidelines, major features are used to categorize observations as LR-3, LR-4, or LR-5.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LI-RADS ancillary features on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography

Dietrich

Kono

et al. 2020

Ultrasonography

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was created to standardize liver imaging in patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and it uses a diagnostic algorithm to assign categories that reflect the relative probability of HCC, non-HCC malignancies, or benign focal liver lesions. In addition to major imaging features, ancillary features (AFs) are used by radiologists to refine the categorization of liver nodules. In the present document, we discuss and explain the application of AFs currently defined within the LI-RADS guidelines. We also explore possible additional AFs visible on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS). Finally, we summarize the management of CEUS LI-RADS features, including the role of current and potential future AFs.

show abstract

Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions Using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System

Cited by 17 publications

References 28 publications

Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis

Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis

Diagnosis of Non-Hepatocellular Carcinoma Malignancies in Patients With Risks for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: CEUS LI-RADS Versus CT/MRI LI-RADS

LI-RADS ancillary features on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About