Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Category on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Liver Transplantation Within the Milan Criteria: A Multicenter Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunyoung Lee ◽  
Kyoung Won Kim ◽  
Woo Kyoung Jeong ◽  
So Yeong Jeong ◽  
Jeong Ah Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Data System ◽  
Milan Criteria ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Resonance Imaging

scholarly journals Magnetic resonance imaging of the cirrhotic liver: diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and evaluation of response to treatment – Part 2

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Ramalho ◽  
António P. Matos ◽  
Mamdoh AlObaidy ◽  
Fernanda Velloni ◽  
Ersan Altun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Diagnostic Algorithm ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Locoregional Therapy ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Imaging Features ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri

Abstract In the second part of this review, we will describe the ancillary imaging features of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that can be seen on standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol, and on novel and emerging protocols such as diffusion weighted imaging and utilization of hepatocyte-specific/hepatobiliary contrast agent. We will also describe the morphologic sub-types of HCC, and give a simplified non-invasive diagnostic algorithm for HCC, followed by a brief description of the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS), and MRI assessment of tumor response following locoregional therapy.

Interobserver Agreement of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel Razek ◽  
Lamiaa Galal El-Serougy ◽  
Gehad Ahmad Saleh ◽  
Rihame Abd el-wahab ◽  
Walaa Shabana
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Data System ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Resonance Imaging

scholarly journals Magnetic resonance imaging ancillary features used in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: An illustrative review

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Campos-Correia ◽  
João Cruz ◽  
António P Matos ◽  
Filipa Figueiredo ◽  
Miguel Ramalho
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Data System ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Ancillary Features

scholarly journals Comparison of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 340-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunyoung Lee ◽  
Seung-seob Kim ◽  
Dong ryul Chang ◽  
Hyerim Kim ◽  
Myeong-Jin Kim
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Noninvasive Diagnosis ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Extracellular Contrast Agent ◽  
Significant Difference

Background/Aims: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) 2018 and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) 2018 criteria on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients.Methods: This retrospective study included 273 treatment-naïve patients (71 patients with extracellular contrast agent [ECA]-MRI and 202 patients with hepatobiliary agent [HBA]-MRI; 352 lesions including 263 HCCs) with high risk of HCC who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI between 2016 and 2017. Two readers evaluated all lesions according to the criteria of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018. The per-lesion diagnostic performances were compared using the generalized estimating equation method.Results: On ECA-MRI, the sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 were not significantly different (LR-5 vs. definite HCC: 75.8% vs. 69.4%, <i>P</i>=0.095 and 95.8% vs. 95.8%, <i>P</i>>0.999; LR-5/4 vs. definite/probable HCC: 87.1% vs.83.9%, P=0.313 and 87.5% vs. 91.7%, <i>P</i>=0.307). On HBA-MRI, definite HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 showed significantly higher sensitivity (79.1% vs. 68.2%, <i>P</i><0.001) than LR-5 of LI-RADS 2018 without a significant difference in specificity (93.9% vs. 95.4%, <i>P</i>=0.314). Definite/probable HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 had higher specificity (92.3% vs. 80.0%, <i>P</i>=0.003) than LR-5/4 of LI-RADS 2018. The sensitivity was lower for definite/probable HCC than for LR-5/4 without statistical significance (85.6% vs. 88.1%, <i>P</i>=0.057).Conclusions: On ECA-MRI, LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 showed comparable diagnostic performances. On HBA-MRI, definite HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 provided better sensitivity than LR-5 category of LI-RADS 2018 without compromising the specificity, while definite/probable HCC of KLCA-NCC 2018 revealed higher specificity than LR-5/4 of LI-RADS 2018 for diagnosing HCC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document