Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 11/2020

01-11-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Hepatobiliary

Diagnostic performance of the LR-M criteria and spectrum of LI-RADS imaging features among primary hepatic carcinomas

Authors: Seung-seob Kim, Sunyoung Lee, Jin-Young Choi, Joon Seok Lim, Mi-Suk Park, Myeong-Jin Kim

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 11/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of LR-M criteria for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma, and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma and to compare the imaging features of each type.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 110 patients were surgically diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma (n = 67) and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (n = 43) at a single tertiary hospital between 2013 and 2018. Among them, those with risk factors were enrolled (16 cholangiocarcinomas and 33 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas). Forty-nine other patients with size-matched hepatocellular carcinoma were selected as a control group. Two independent readers evaluated the imaging findings of the preoperative MRIs based on LI-RADS version 2018 and assigned an LI-RADS category. The diagnostic performance of the LR-M criteria for diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma or combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma was evaluated, and the imaging features were compared. The imaging findings of the tumors in patients without risk factors (51 cholangiocarcinomas and 10 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas) were evaluated for subgroup analysis.

Results

In the non-hepatocellular carcinoma group, 33 patients were categorized into LR-M and 14 patients into LR-5 (67.3% and 28.6%, respectively), while 5 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were categorized into LR-M and 38 patients into LR-5 (10.2% and 77.6%, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of the LR-M criteria were 67.3% and 89.8%, respectively. When more than two LR-M features were present, cholangiocarcinoma or combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma were suggested with a specificity of 95.9%.

Conclusion

The diagnostic performance of the LR-M criteria is acceptable with moderate sensitivity and high specificity for both cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. Imaging findings of primary hepatic carcinomas should be understood as a spectrum.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
9.
go back to reference Joo I, Lee JM, Lee SM, Lee JS, Park JY, Han JK (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2014 for intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinomas in patients with chronic liver disease on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 44(5):1330-1338. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25287CrossRefPubMed Joo I, Lee JM, Lee SM, Lee JS, Park JY, Han JK (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2014 for intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinomas in patients with chronic liver disease on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 44(5):1330-1338. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jmri.​25287CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK, Kang TW, Lee SJ, Choi GS, Choi SY, Ahn S (2018) Prospective Intraindividual Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Gadoxetic Acid and Extracellular Contrast for Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinomas Using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. Hepatology 68(6):2254-2266. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.30122CrossRefPubMed Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK, Kang TW, Lee SJ, Choi GS, Choi SY, Ahn S (2018) Prospective Intraindividual Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Gadoxetic Acid and Extracellular Contrast for Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinomas Using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. Hepatology 68(6):2254-2266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​hep.​30122CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Sempoux C, Kakar S, Kondo F, Schirmacher P (2019) Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma and undifferentiated primary liver carcinoma, 5th ed. edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon (France) Sempoux C, Kakar S, Kondo F, Schirmacher P (2019) Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma and undifferentiated primary liver carcinoma, 5th ed. edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon (France)
30.
go back to reference Potretzke TA, Tan BR, Doyle MB, Brunt EM, Heiken JP, Fowler KJ (2016) Imaging Features of Biphenotypic Primary Liver Carcinoma (Hepatocholangiocarcinoma) and the Potential to Mimic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: LI-RADS Analysis of CT and MRI Features in 61 Cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(1):25-31. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.15.14997CrossRefPubMed Potretzke TA, Tan BR, Doyle MB, Brunt EM, Heiken JP, Fowler KJ (2016) Imaging Features of Biphenotypic Primary Liver Carcinoma (Hepatocholangiocarcinoma) and the Potential to Mimic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: LI-RADS Analysis of CT and MRI Features in 61 Cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(1):25-31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2214/​ajr.​15.​14997CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Ding Y, Rao SX, Wang WT, Chen CZ, Li RC, Zeng M (2018) Comparison of gadoxetic acid versus gadopentetate dimeglumine for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at 1.5 T using the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS v.2017). Cancer Imaging 18(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-018-0183-3 Ding Y, Rao SX, Wang WT, Chen CZ, Li RC, Zeng M (2018) Comparison of gadoxetic acid versus gadopentetate dimeglumine for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma at 1.5 T using the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS v.2017). Cancer Imaging 18(1):48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40644-018-0183-3
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic performance of the LR-M criteria and spectrum of LI-RADS imaging features among primary hepatic carcinomas
Authors
Seung-seob Kim
Sunyoung Lee
Jin-Young Choi
Joon Seok Lim
Mi-Suk Park
Myeong-Jin Kim
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02562-y

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

Abdominal Radiology 11/2020 Go to the issue