Cargando…

Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC

OBJECTIVES: To compare the inter-modality consistency and diagnostic performances of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) LI-RADS in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), so as to hel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wen, Rong, Huang, Weiche, Song, Rui, Qin, Lanhui, Wu, Yuquan, Peng, Yuting, Huang, Xiongyan, He, Yun, Yang, Hong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10496202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37697248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-01088-1
_version_ 1785105058777530368
author Wen, Rong
Huang, Weiche
Song, Rui
Qin, Lanhui
Wu, Yuquan
Peng, Yuting
Huang, Xiongyan
He, Yun
Yang, Hong
author_facet Wen, Rong
Huang, Weiche
Song, Rui
Qin, Lanhui
Wu, Yuquan
Peng, Yuting
Huang, Xiongyan
He, Yun
Yang, Hong
author_sort Wen, Rong
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare the inter-modality consistency and diagnostic performances of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) LI-RADS in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), so as to help clinicians to select a more appropriate modality to follow the focal liver lesions (FLLs). METHODS: This retrospective study included untreated 277 FLLs from 247 patients who underwent both CEUS and CECT within 1 month. The ultrasound contrast medium used was SonoVue. FLL categories were independently assigned by two ultrasound physicians and two radiologists using CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and CECT LI-RADS v2018, respectively. The diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT LI-RADS were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value. Cohen’s Kappa was employed to evaluate the concordance of the LI-RADS category. RESULTS: The inter-modality consistency for CEUS and CECT LI-RADS was 0.31 (p < 0.001). HCC was more frequently observed in CECT LR-3 and LR-4 hepatic lesions than in CEUS (7.3% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.001). The specificity and PPV of CEUS and CECT LR-5 for the diagnosis of HCC were 89.5%, 95.0%, and 82.5%, 94.4%, respectively. The sensitivity of CEUS LR-5 + LR-M for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies was higher than that of CECT (93.7% vs. 82.7%, p < 0.001). The specificity and PPV of CEUS LR-M for the diagnosis of non-HCC malignancies were lower than those of CECT (59.7% vs. 95.5%, p < 0.001; 23.4% vs. 70.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The inter-modality consistency between the CEUS and CECT LI-RADS categories is fair. CEUS LI-RADS was more sensitive than CECT LI-RADS in terms of identifying hepatic malignancies, but weaker in terms of separating HCC from non-HCC malignancies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12880-023-01088-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10496202
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104962022023-09-13 Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC Wen, Rong Huang, Weiche Song, Rui Qin, Lanhui Wu, Yuquan Peng, Yuting Huang, Xiongyan He, Yun Yang, Hong BMC Med Imaging Research OBJECTIVES: To compare the inter-modality consistency and diagnostic performances of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) LI-RADS in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), so as to help clinicians to select a more appropriate modality to follow the focal liver lesions (FLLs). METHODS: This retrospective study included untreated 277 FLLs from 247 patients who underwent both CEUS and CECT within 1 month. The ultrasound contrast medium used was SonoVue. FLL categories were independently assigned by two ultrasound physicians and two radiologists using CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and CECT LI-RADS v2018, respectively. The diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT LI-RADS were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value. Cohen’s Kappa was employed to evaluate the concordance of the LI-RADS category. RESULTS: The inter-modality consistency for CEUS and CECT LI-RADS was 0.31 (p < 0.001). HCC was more frequently observed in CECT LR-3 and LR-4 hepatic lesions than in CEUS (7.3% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.001). The specificity and PPV of CEUS and CECT LR-5 for the diagnosis of HCC were 89.5%, 95.0%, and 82.5%, 94.4%, respectively. The sensitivity of CEUS LR-5 + LR-M for the diagnosis of hepatic malignancies was higher than that of CECT (93.7% vs. 82.7%, p < 0.001). The specificity and PPV of CEUS LR-M for the diagnosis of non-HCC malignancies were lower than those of CECT (59.7% vs. 95.5%, p < 0.001; 23.4% vs. 70.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The inter-modality consistency between the CEUS and CECT LI-RADS categories is fair. CEUS LI-RADS was more sensitive than CECT LI-RADS in terms of identifying hepatic malignancies, but weaker in terms of separating HCC from non-HCC malignancies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12880-023-01088-1. BioMed Central 2023-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10496202/ /pubmed/37697248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-01088-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Wen, Rong
Huang, Weiche
Song, Rui
Qin, Lanhui
Wu, Yuquan
Peng, Yuting
Huang, Xiongyan
He, Yun
Yang, Hong
Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC
title Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC
title_full Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC
title_fullStr Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC
title_full_unstemmed Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC
title_short Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC
title_sort differences between ceus li-rads and cect li-rads in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for hcc
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10496202/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37697248
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-023-01088-1
work_keys_str_mv AT wenrong differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT huangweiche differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT songrui differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT qinlanhui differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT wuyuquan differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT pengyuting differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT huangxiongyan differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT heyun differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc
AT yanghong differencesbetweenceusliradsandcectliradsinthediagnosisoffocalliverlesionsinpatientsatriskforhcc