Threshold growth has a limited role in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from other focal hepatic lesions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The role of threshold growth, as one of the major features (MFs) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is inconsistent. This study evaluated the LI-RADS diagnostic performance for HCC when threshold growth was removed or replaced by independently significant ancillary features (AFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective institutional review board-approved study included patients with a high HCC risk who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRIs. The MRI findings were consistent with pathologically proven focal hepatic observations. The pathological results were used as the gold standard reference. The sizes of the lesions with and without threshold growth were compared. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to confirm the independently significant AFs of HCC. In addition to the classification criteria of LI-RADS version 2018 (LI-RADS v2018), the lesions were also reclassified according to the following two schemes: scheme A, using all MFs except threshold growth, with threshold growth feature treated as an AF favouring malignancy; and scheme B, replacing the threshold growth feature with independently significant AFs and treated them as new MFs. The diagnostic performance of the above two LI-RADS schemes for HCC was calculated and compared with that of LI-RADS v2018. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients and 426 observations were included. Threshold growth was not an independent significant MF for HCC diagnosis [odds ratio (OR), 1.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6–1.8; p = 0.927]. For all three groups of observations (HCCs, non-HCC malignancies, and benign lesions), the mean size with threshold growth was smaller than that without threshold growth (all p < 0.05). The nodule-in-nodule feature was an independent significant AF (OR, 9.8; 95% CI, 1.2–79.3; p = 0.032) and was used to replace threshold growth as a new MF in scheme B. The sensitivities of schemes A and B were 74.0% and 75.6%, respectively. The specificities of schemes A and B were the same (88.6%). None of the diagnostic performance metrics for HCC (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) of either scheme A or B was significantly different from those of LI-RADS v2018 (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Threshold growth is not an independently significant MF for HCC diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of LI-RADS for HCC is not affected regardless of whether threshold growth is removed from the list of MFs or replaced with an independently significant and more HCC-specific AF, which is the nodule-in-nodule feature.