Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Abdominal Radiology
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 1/2018

01-01-2018 | Invited article

Management implications and outcomes of LI-RADS-2, -3, -4, and -M category observations

Authors: Donald G. Mitchell, Mustafa R. Bashir, Claude B. Sirlin

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

A radiologist issuing a LI-RADS category is, implicitly or explicitly, a member of a multidisciplinary team. If the definite diagnosis of a benign or malignant entity is not possible, categorizing the uncertainty as LR-2, -3, -4, or -M has important management implications. In this article, we discuss the range of options for management or further diagnostic testing and how a LR category may affect the choice between them. We then review recent published data regarding eventual diagnoses following assignment of a LR category.
Literature
1.
Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, et al. (2015) LI-RADS (liver imaging reporting and data system): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS management working group and future directions. Hepatology 61(3):1056–1065CrossRefPubMed
2.
Holland AE, Hecht EM, Hahn WY, et al. (2005) Importance of small (≤20-mm) enhancing lesions seen only during the hepatic arterial phase at MR imaging of the cirrhotic liver: evaluation and comparison with whole explanted liver. Radiology 237(3):938–944CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Semelka RC, et al. (2003) Early-enhancing non-neoplastic lesions on gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the liver. Clin Radiol 58(10):778–786CrossRefPubMed
4.
Jeong YY, Mitchell DG, Hann HWL, et al. (2001) Hepatocellular carcinoma after systemic chemotherapy: gadolinium-enhanced mr measurement of necrosis by volume histogram. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25(4):624–628CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Poulose KP, Reba RC, Gilday DL, et al. (1970) Diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. A correlative study of the clinical, scan, and angiographic findings. Br Med J 3(5714):67–71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Petruzzi N, Mitchell D, Guglielmo F, et al. (2013) Hepatocellular carcinoma likelihood on MRI exams: evaluation of a standardized categorization system. Acad Radiol 20(6):694–698CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tanabe M, Kanki A, Wolfson T, et al. (2016) Imaging outcomes of liver imaging reporting and data system version 2014 category 2, 3, and 4 observations detected at CT and MR imaging. Radiology 281(1):129–139CrossRefPubMed
9.
Mitchell DG, Saini S, Weinreb J, et al. (1994) Hepatic metastases and cavernous hemangiomas: distinction with standard- and triple-dose gadoteridol-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 193(1):49–57CrossRefPubMed
10.
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(3):698–707CrossRefPubMed
11.
Choi JY, Cho HC, Sun M, et al. (2013) Indeterminate observations (liver imaging reporting and data system category 3) on MRI in the cirrhotic liver: fate and clinical implications. AJR 201(5):993–1001CrossRefPubMed
12.
Burke LM, Sofue K, Alagiyawanna M, et al. (2016) Natural history of liver imaging reporting and data system category 4 nodules in MRI. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41(9):1758–1766CrossRef
13.
Choi SH, Byun JH, Kim SY, et al. (2016) Liver Imaging reporting and data system v2014 with gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: validation of LI-RADS category 4 and 5 criteria. Invest Radiol 51(8):483–490CrossRefPubMed
14.
Sofue, K., Burke, L., Nilmini, V., et al. (2017) Liver imaging reporting and data system category 4 observations in MRI: Risk factors predicting upgrade to category 5. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.​1002/​jmri.​25627
Metadata
Title
Management implications and outcomes of LI-RADS-2, -3, -4, and -M category observations
Authors
Donald G. Mitchell
Mustafa R. Bashir
Claude B. Sirlin
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1251-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Abdominal Radiology 1/2018 Go to the issue

Invited article

Letter to the editor response

Letter to the Editor

Letter to the editor

Invited article

Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma and the new LI-RADS treatment response algorithm

OriginalPaper

LI-RADS M (LR-M): definite or probable malignancy, not specific for hepatocellular carcinoma

Invited article

LI-RADS and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Invited article

Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch now

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits