LI-RADS technical requirements for CT, MRI, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound

Kambadakone, Avinash; Fung, Alice; Gupta, Rajan T.; Hope, Thomas A.; Fowler, Kathryn J.; Lyshchik, Andrej; Ganesan, Karthik; Yaghmai, Vahid; Guimarães, Alexander R.; Sahani, Dushyant V.; Miller, Frank H.

doi:10.1007/s00261-017-1325-y

Cited by 69 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 169 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dynamic contrast‐enhanced CT examinations were performed on 64‐detector row scanners, and MRI examinations were performed on 1.5T and 3T scanners, with the details of the protocols and MR equipment summarized previously . All imaging studies met LI‐RADS minimal technical requirements …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(9) All imaging studies met LI-RADS minimal technical requirements. (10) statistical analysis Cohort characteristics, observation features, and concordance between systems in assigning observation category and T stage were summarized descriptively. STATA, version 13.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) was used for statistical analysis.…”

Section: Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018: Impact on Categorization and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to assess the concordance in categorization and radiologic T staging using Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI‐RADS, LR) version 2017 (v2017), version 2018 (v2018), and the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) criteria. All magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography reports using a standardized LI‐RADS macro between April 2015 and March 2018 were identified retrospectively. The major features (size, arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout, enhancing capsule, or threshold growth) were extracted from the report for each LR‐3, LR‐4, and LR‐5 observation. Each observation was assigned a new category based on LI‐RADS v2017, v2018, and OPTN criteria. Radiologic T stage was calculated based on the size and number of LR‐5 or OPTN class 5 observations. Categories and T stages assigned by each system were compared descriptively. There were 398 patients (66.6% male; mean age, 63.4 years) with 641 observations (median size, 14 mm) who were included. A total of 73/182 (40.1%) observations categorized LR‐4 by LI‐RADS v2017 were up‐categorized to LR‐5 by LI‐RADS v2018 due to changes in the LR‐5 criteria, and 4/196 (2.0%) observations categorized as LR‐5 by LI‐RADS v2017 were down‐categorized to LR‐4 by LI‐RADS v2018 due to changes in the threshold growth definition. The T stage was higher by LI‐RADS v2018 than LI‐RADS v2017 in 49/398 (12.3%) patients. Compared with the OPTN stage, 12/398 (3.0%) patients were upstaged by LI‐RADS v2017 and 60/398 (15.1%) by LI‐RADS v2018. Of 101 patients, 5 (5.0%) patients with T2 stage based on LI‐RADS v2017 and 10/102 (9.8%) patients with T2 stage based on LI‐RADS v2018 did not meet the T2 criteria based on the OPTN criteria. Of the 98 patients with a T2 stage based on OPTN criteria, 2 (2.0%) had a T stage ≥3 based on LI‐RADS v2017 and 6 (6.1%) had a T stage ≥3 based on LI‐RADS v2018.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Imaging Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018: Impact on Categorization and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Imaging of very superficial liver lesions with higher‐frequency transducers will require a contrast dose increase. In addition to patient factors, the contrast dose can be adjusted on the basis of the sensitivity of the equipment used for the CEUS examination Imaging should be performed continuously from contrast injection until peak arterial‐phase enhancement to characterize the presence, intensity, and pattern of arterial‐phase enhancement.…”

Section: Specifications Of the Examinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound Examinations

2020

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Multiple factors can affect the quality of the arterial phase when using gadoxetate. Correct timing of the AP is crucial for assessment of APHE, which is most optimally observed in the late AP . One factor that may affect timing is the small dose.…”

Section: Potential Pitfalls Of Gadoxetate Mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Correct timing of the AP is crucial for assessment of APHE, which is most optimally observed in the late AP. 75,76 One factor that may affect timing is the small dose. The approved gadoxetate dose of 0.025 mmol/kg is less than other agents, most of which are approved for doses of 0.1 mmol/kg.…”

Section: Quality Of Arterial Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Use of gadoxetate disodium in patients with chronic liver disease and its implications for liver imaging reporting and data system (LI‐RADS)

Chernyak

Fowler

Heiken

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of gadoxetate disodium, a hepatobiliary gadolinium‐based agent, in patients with chronic parenchymal liver disease offers the advantage of improved sensitivity for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Imaging features of liver observations on gadoxetate‐enhanced MRI may also serve as biomarkers of recurrence‐free and overall survival following definitive treatment of HCC. A number of technical and interpretative pitfalls specific to gadoxetate exist, however, and needs to be recognized when protocoling and interpreting MRI exams with this agent. This article reviews the advantages and pitfalls of gadoxetate use in patients at risk for HCC, and the potential impact on Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI‐RADS) imaging feature assessment and categorization. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1236–1252.

show abstract

LI-RADS technical requirements for CT, MRI, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound

Cited by 69 publications

References 169 publications

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018: Impact on Categorization and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018: Impact on Categorization and Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging

AIUM Practice Parameter for the Performance of Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound Examinations

Use of gadoxetate disodium in patients with chronic liver disease and its implications for liver imaging reporting and data system (LI‐RADS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About