Cargando…

Optimizing diagnostic imaging data using LI-RADS and the Likert scale in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), which incorporates fixed criteria, and the Likert scale (LS), which mainly depends on an overall impression in liver lesion diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Diagnostic data of 110...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morad, Kholoud, Moustafa, Amr F., Refaat, Amal M., AbdEllatif, Ahmed, ElAzab, Mohammed S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8607836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34820032
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2021.110647
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), which incorporates fixed criteria, and the Likert scale (LS), which mainly depends on an overall impression in liver lesion diagnosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Diagnostic data of 110 hepatic nodules in 103 high-risk patients for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were included. Data including diameter, arterial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule were reviewed by 2 readers using LI-RADS and LS (range, score 1-5). Inter-reader agreement (IRA), intraclass agreement (ICA), and diagnostic performance were determined by Fleiss, Cohen’s k, and logistic regression, respectively. RESULTS: There were 53 triphasic enhanced computed tomography (CT) and 50 dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) examinations. Overall, IRA was excellent (k = 0.898). IRA was good for arterial hyperenhancement (k = 0.705), washout (k = 0.763), and capsule (k = 0.771) and excellent for diameter (k = 0.981) and tumour embolus (k = 0.927). Overall, ICA between LI-RADS and LS was fair 0.32; ICA was good for scores of 1 (k = 0.682), fair for scores of 2 (k = 0.36), moderate for scores of 5 (k = 0.52), but no agreement was found for scores of 3 (k = –0.059) and 4 (k = –0.022). LIRADS produced relatively high accuracy (87.3% vs. 80%), relatively low sensitivity (84.3% vs. 98%), and significantly higher specificity (89.83% vs. 64.4%) and positive likelihood ratio (+LR: 8.29 vs. 2.75) compared to LS approach. CONCLUSIONS: LI-RADS revealed higher diagnostic accuracy as compared to LS with statistical proof higher specificity and +LR showing its ability to foretell malignancy in high-risk patients. We recommend the practical application of the LI-RADS system in the detection and treatment response monitoring of patients with HCC.