Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

LI-RADS ancillary feature prediction of longitudinal category changes in LR-3 observations: an exploratory study

  • Hepatobiliary
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether LI-RADS ancillary features predict longitudinal LR-3 observation category changes.

Materials and Methods

This exploratory, retrospective, single-center study with an independent reading center included patients who underwent two or more multiphase CT or MRI examinations for hepatocellular carcinoma assessment between 2011 and 2015. Three readers independently evaluated each observation using CT/MRI LI-RADS v2017, and observations categorized LR-3 using major features only were included in the analysis. Prevalence of major and ancillary features was calculated. After excluding low-frequency (< 5%) features, inter-reader agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Major and ancillary feature prediction of observation upgrade (to LR-4 or higher) or downgrade (to LR-1 or LR-2) on follow-up imaging was assessed using logistic regression.

Results

141 LR-3 observations in 79 patients were included. Arterial phase hyperenhancement, washout, restricted diffusion, mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity, and hepatobiliary phase hypointensity were frequent enough for further analysis (consensus prevalence 5.0–66.0%). ICCs for inter-reader agreement ranged from 0.18 for restricted diffusion to 0.48 for hepatobiliary phase hypointensity. On follow-up, 40% (57/141) of baseline LR-3 observations remained LR-3. 8% (11/141) were downgraded to LR-2, and 42% (59/141) were downgraded to LR-1. A small number were ultimately upgraded to LR-4 (2%, 3/141) or LR-5 (8%, 11/141). None of the assessed major or ancillary features was significantly associated with observation category change. Longer follow-up time was significantly associated with both observation upgrade and downgrade.

Conclusion

While numerous ancillary features are described in LI-RADS, most are rarely present and are not useful predictors of LR-3 observation category changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cerny M, Chernyak V, Olivié D, et al. LI-RADS version 2018 ancillary features at MRI. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2018;38(7):1973–2001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30289735. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180052.

  2. El-Serag H. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1118–1127. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/10.1056/NEJMra1001683. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra1001683.

  3. Choi J, Lee J, Sirlin CB. CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma. part I. development, growth, and spread: Key pathologic and imaging aspects. Radiology. 2014;272(3):635–654.

  4. Choi J, Lee J, Sirlin CB. CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma. part II. extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features. Radiology. 2014;273(1):30–50.

  5. American College of Radiology. Liver imaging reporting and data system version 2018. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS. Accessed January 16, 2019.

  6. Tanabe M, Kanki A, Wolfson T, et al. Imaging outcomes of liver imaging reporting and data system version 2014 category 2, 3, and 4 observations detected at CT and MR imaging. Radiology. 2016;281(1):129–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chernyak V, Tang A, Flusberg M, et al. LI-RADS® ancillary features on CT and MRI. Abdom Radiol. 2018;43(1):82–100. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1992864854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1220-6.

  8. Cerny M, Bergeron C, Billiard J, et al. LI-RADS for MR imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Performance of major and ancillary features. Radiology. 2018;288(1):118–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Joo I, Lee JM, Lee DH, Ahn SJ, Lee ES, Han JK. Liver imaging reporting and data system v2014 categorization of hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid‐enhanced MRI: Comparison with multiphasic multidetector computed tomography. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2017;45(3):731–740. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmri.25406. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Choi S, Byun J, Kim S, et al. Liver imaging reporting and data system v2014 with gadoxetate Disodium–Enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: Validation of LI-RADS category 4 and 5 criteria. Investigative Radiology. 2016;51(8):483–490. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26885632. https://doi.org/10.1097/rli.0000000000000258.

  11. Mitchell D, Bashir M, Sirlin C. Management implications and outcomes of LI-RADS-2, -3, -4, and -M category observations. Abdom Radiol. 2018;43(1):143–148. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28779335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1251-z.

  12. Van der Pol, Christian B, Lim CS, Sirlin CB, et al. Accuracy of the liver imaging reporting and data system in computed tomography and magnetic resonance image analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma or overall Malignancy—A systematic review. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4):976–986.

  13. Choi J, Cho HC, Sun M, Kim HC, Sirlin CB. Indeterminate observations (liver imaging reporting and data system category 3) on MRI in the cirrhotic liver: Fate and clinical implications. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2013;201(5):993–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. J. Richard Landis, Gary G. Koch. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2529310. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

  15. Sano K, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U, et al. Imaging study of early hepatocellular carcinoma: Usefulness of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2011;261(3):834–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen N, Motosugi U, Morisaka H, et al. Added value of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatocyte-phase image to the LI-RADS system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences. 2016;15(1):49–59.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Suh CH, Kim KW, Pyo J, Lee J, Kim SY, Park SH. Hypervascular transformation of hypovascular hypointense nodules in the hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2017;209(4):781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Saya Igarashi

    Present address: Department of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Science, 13-1 Takaramachi, Kanazawa, 920-8641, Japan

  2. Atsushi Higaki

    Present address: Department of Radiology, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki-shi, Okayama, 701-0192, Japan

  3. Masahiro Tanabe

    Present address: Department of Radiology, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Minamikogushi Ube, Yamaguchi, 755-850, Japan

  4. Please note that this single-center study with an independent reading center has, in total, eleven contributing authors. Each author contributed significantly to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Erin Shropshire, Brian C. Allen, Tracy A. Jaffe & Mustafa R. Bashir

  2. Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, San Diego, CA, 92093, USA

    Adrija Mamidipalli, Saya Igarashi, Atsushi Higaki, Masahiro Tanabe & Claude B. Sirlin

  3. Computational and Applied Statistics Laboratory (CASL), San Diego Supercomputer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA

    Tanya Wolfson & Anthony Gamst

Authors
  1. Erin Shropshire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adrija Mamidipalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tanya Wolfson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brian C. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tracy A. Jaffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Saya Igarashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Atsushi Higaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masahiro Tanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anthony Gamst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Claude B. Sirlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mustafa R. Bashir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ES: Primary author, data collection, analysis, and data manager. AM: Data collection, analysis, and manuscript revision. TW: Study design, statistical analysis, secondary author of statistical portion, and manuscript revision. BCA, TAJ: Data collection, study reader, and manuscript revision. SI, AH, MT: Study design, data collection, and manuscript revision. AG: Study design, statistical analysis, and manuscript revision. CBS: Study design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript revision. MRB: Study design, study reader, data analysis, manuscript revision, and corresponding author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin Shropshire.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Erin Shropshire, Adrija Mamidipalli, Tanya Wolfson, Brian C. Allen, Tracy A. Jaffe, Saya Igarashi, Atsushi Higaki, Masahiro Tanabe, Anthony Gamst: No grants or assistance relevant to the study, no financial disclosures. Claude B. Sirlin: Research grants: Bayer, GE, Gilead, Philips, Siemens; Personal consulting: Boehringer, Epigenomics; Representative for institutional consultation: BMS, Exact Sciences, IBM-Watson; Active lab service agreements: Enanta, Gilead, ICON, Intercept, Nusirt, Shire, Synageva, Takeda; Completed lab service agreements: Alexion, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galmed, Genzyme, Isis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Virtualscopics. Mustafa R. Bashir: Research Grants: Siemens Healthcare, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Metacrine Inc., ProSciento Inc., Pinnacle Clinical Research, CymaBay Therapeutics; Consulting: MedPace.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

IRB Statement: The institutional review board approved this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shropshire, E., Mamidipalli, A., Wolfson, T. et al. LI-RADS ancillary feature prediction of longitudinal category changes in LR-3 observations: an exploratory study. Abdom Radiol 45, 3092–3102 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02429-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02429-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation