Retrospective analysis of current guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis on gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI in at-risk patients
Tóm tắt
To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of the updated HCC guidelines using gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI. In this study, patients at risk of HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI following US/CT surveillance were retrospectively recruited from 3 centers. Three radiologists independently evaluated hepatic nodule imaging features relevant to the diagnostic criteria outlined in each guideline. Per-lesion sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared between guidelines using logistic regression with a generalized estimating equation. Inter-observer agreements on imaging features were determined using Fless κ statistics. Altogether, 447 nodules (310 HCCs, 20 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas, 2 cholangiocarcinomas, and 115 benign entities) measuring 1–3 cm from 386 patients were assessed. The KLCA-NCC and APASL guidelines showed the highest sensitivity (82.3–90.6%, p < .001) and accuracy (83.9–88.6%) among the five guidelines. The OPTN/UNOS guideline showed the highest specificity (94.9–97.1%), followed by the AASLD/LI-RADS, EASL, KLCA-NCC, and APASL guidelines, with significant difference only with the APASL guideline. The diagnostic performance of the updated AASLD/LI-RADS and EASL guidelines and of the KLCA-NCC and APASL guidelines was comparable (p > .05). Inter-observer agreement was substantial to almost perfect (κ = 0.73–0.87). For the diagnosis of HCC using gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI, the KLCA-NCC and APASL guidelines showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy. The OPTN/UNOS guideline showed the highest specificity. Acknowledging their relative strengths and weaknesses could help adapt the diagnostic criteria according to the clinical context.
• APASL and KLCA-NCC provided significantly the highest sensitivity and accuracy, followed by AASLD/LI-RADS and EASL in an endemic area for hepatitis B.
• OPTN/UNOS showed the highest specificity, followed by AASLD/LI-RADS, EASL, KLCA-NCC, and APASL guidelines, with significant difference only with APASL.
• Broadened definition of arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and the size of the lesion eligible to apply diagnostic criteria may improve the diagnostic performance for HCC in an endemic area for hepatitis B.
Tài liệu tham khảo
European Association for the Study of the Liver (2018) EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 69:182–236
Fattovich G, Stroffolini T, Zagni I, Donato F (2004) Hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: incidence and risk factors. Gastroenterology 127:S35–S50
Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N et al (2017) Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int 11:317–370
Korean Liver Cancer Association (KLCA); National Cancer Center (NCC), Goyang, Korea (2019) 2018 Korean liver cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 20:1042–1113
Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS et al (2018) AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 67:358–380
Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A et al (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology. 289:816–830
Erkan B, Meier J, Clark TJ, Kaplan J, Lambert JR, Chang S (2019) Non-invasive diagnostic criteria of hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of diagnostic accuracy of updated LI-RADS with clinical practice guidelines of OPTN-UNOS, AASLD, NCCN, EASL-EORTC, and KLSCG-NCC. PLoS One 14:e0226291
Tang A, Cruite I, Mitchell DG, Sirlin CB (2018) Hepatocellular carcinoma imaging systems: why they exist, how they have evolved, and how they differ. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:3–12
Fowler KJ, Tang A, Santillan C et al (2018) Interreader reliability of LI-RADS Version 2014 Algorithm and imaging features for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a large international multireader study. Radiology 286:173–185
Ehman EC, Behr SC, Umetsu SE et al (2016) Rate of observation and inter-observer agreement for LI-RADS major features at CT and MRI in 184 pathology proven hepatocellular carcinomas. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:963–969
Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Liu PS et al (2014) Repeatability of diagnostic features and scoring systems for hepatocellular carcinoma by using MR imaging. Radiology 272:132–142
Bashir MR, Huang R, Mayes N et al (2015) Concordance of hypervascular liver nodule characterization between the organ procurement and transplant network and liver imaging reporting and data system classifications. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:305–314
Barth BK, Donati OF, Fischer MA et al (2016) Reliability, validity, and reader acceptance of LI-RADS—an in-depth analysis. Acad Radiol 23:1145–1153
Park SH, Kim B, Kim SY et al (2020) Characterizing computed tomography-detected arterial hyperenhancing-only lesions in patients at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma: can non-contrast magnetic resonance imaging be used for sequential imaging? Korean J Radiol 21:280–289
Park SH, Kim B, Kim SY et al (2020) Abbreviated MRI with optional multiphasic CT as an alternative to full-sequence MRI: LI-RADS validation in a HCC-screening cohort. Eur Radiol 30:2302–2311
Rosenkrantz AB, Campbell N, Wehrli N, Triolo MJ, Kim S (2015) New OPTN/UNOS classification system for nodules in cirrhotic livers detected with MR imaging: effect on hepatocellular carcinoma detection and transplantation allocation. Radiology 274:426–433
Lee HS, Kim JK, Cheong JY et al (2010) Prediction of compensated liver cirrhosis by ultrasonography and routine blood tests in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. Korean J Hepatol 16:369
Choi BI, Lee KH, Han JK, Lee JM (2002) Hepatic arterioportal shunts: dynamic CT and MR features. Korean J Radiol 3:1–15
Hussain SM, Reinhold C, Mitchell DG (2009) Cirrhosis and lesion characterization at MR imaging. Radiographics 29:1637–1652
An H, Park H, Kim Y, Jung S, Jeon H (2013) Focal nodular hyperplasia: characterisation at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol 86:20130299
Lee S, Kim MJ, Kim SS et al (2020) Retrospective comparison of EASL 2018 and LI-RADS 2018 for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Hepatol Int 14:70–79
Lee SM, Lee JM, Ahn SJ, Kang HJ, Yang HK, Yoon JH (2019) LI-RADS Version 2017 versus Version 2018: diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI. Radiology 292:655–663
Kim YY, An C, Kim S, Kim MJ (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of prospective application of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) in gadoxetate-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 28:2038–2046
Fraum TJ, Tsai R, Rohe E et al (2018) Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from other hepatic malignancies in patients at risk: diagnostic performance of the liver imaging reporting and data system version 2014. Radiology 286:158–172
Darnell A, Forner A, Rimola J et al (2015) Liver imaging reporting and data system with MR imaging: evaluation in nodules 20 mm or smaller detected in cirrhosis at screening US. Radiology 275:698–707
Lee S, Kim SS, Chang DR, Kim H, Kim MJ (2020) Comparison of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Mol Hepatol 26:340–351