Cargando…
The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018
PURPOSE: To assess role of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 for the prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 137 hepatic focal lesions in 108 patients at risk of HCC, wh...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Termedia Publishing House
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8814898/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35140827 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.113193 |
_version_ | 1784645171913162752 |
---|---|
author | Saleh, Gehad Ahmad Razek, Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel El-Serougy, Lamiaa Galal Shabana, Walaa El-Wahab, Rihame Abd |
author_facet | Saleh, Gehad Ahmad Razek, Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel El-Serougy, Lamiaa Galal Shabana, Walaa El-Wahab, Rihame Abd |
author_sort | Saleh, Gehad Ahmad |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To assess role of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 for the prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 137 hepatic focal lesions in 108 patients at risk of HCC, who underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. Hepatic focal lesions were classified according to LI-RADS-v2018, and ADC of hepatic lesions was calculated by 2 independent blinded reviewers. RESULTS: The mean ADC of LR-1 and LR-2 were 2.11 ± 0.47 and 2.08 ± 0.47 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, LR-3 were 1.28 ± 0.12 and 1.36 ± 0.16 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, LR-4, LR-5 and LR-TIV were 1.07 ± 0.08 and 1.08 ± 0.12 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s and LR-M were 1.02 ± 0.09 and 1.00 ± 0.09 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s by both observers, respectively. There was excellent agreement of both readings for LR-1 and LR-2 (r = 0.988), LR-3 (r = 0.965), LR-4, LR-5 and LR-TIV (r = 0.889) and LR-M (r = 0.883). There was excellent correlation between ADC and LI-RADS-v2018 (r = –0.849 and –0.846). The cut-off ADC used to differentiate LR-3 from LR-4, LR-5, and LR-TIV were ≤ 1.21 and ≤ 1.23 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s with AUC of 0.948 and 0.926. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of ADC to LI-RADS-v2018 improves differentiation variable LI-RADS categories and can helps in the prediction of HCC. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8814898 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Termedia Publishing House |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88148982022-02-08 The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 Saleh, Gehad Ahmad Razek, Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel El-Serougy, Lamiaa Galal Shabana, Walaa El-Wahab, Rihame Abd Pol J Radiol Original Paper PURPOSE: To assess role of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 for the prediction of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 137 hepatic focal lesions in 108 patients at risk of HCC, who underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. Hepatic focal lesions were classified according to LI-RADS-v2018, and ADC of hepatic lesions was calculated by 2 independent blinded reviewers. RESULTS: The mean ADC of LR-1 and LR-2 were 2.11 ± 0.47 and 2.08 ± 0.47 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, LR-3 were 1.28 ± 0.12 and 1.36 ± 0.16 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, LR-4, LR-5 and LR-TIV were 1.07 ± 0.08 and 1.08 ± 0.12 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s and LR-M were 1.02 ± 0.09 and 1.00 ± 0.09 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s by both observers, respectively. There was excellent agreement of both readings for LR-1 and LR-2 (r = 0.988), LR-3 (r = 0.965), LR-4, LR-5 and LR-TIV (r = 0.889) and LR-M (r = 0.883). There was excellent correlation between ADC and LI-RADS-v2018 (r = –0.849 and –0.846). The cut-off ADC used to differentiate LR-3 from LR-4, LR-5, and LR-TIV were ≤ 1.21 and ≤ 1.23 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s with AUC of 0.948 and 0.926. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of ADC to LI-RADS-v2018 improves differentiation variable LI-RADS categories and can helps in the prediction of HCC. Termedia Publishing House 2022-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8814898/ /pubmed/35140827 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.113193 Text en © Pol J Radiol 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Saleh, Gehad Ahmad Razek, Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel El-Serougy, Lamiaa Galal Shabana, Walaa El-Wahab, Rihame Abd The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 |
title | The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 |
title_full | The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 |
title_fullStr | The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 |
title_full_unstemmed | The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 |
title_short | The value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 |
title_sort | value of the apparent diffusion coefficient value in the liver imaging reporting and data system (li-rads) version 2018 |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8814898/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35140827 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.113193 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT salehgehadahmad thevalueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT razekahmedabdelkhalekabdel thevalueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT elserougylamiaagalal thevalueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT shabanawalaa thevalueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT elwahabrihameabd thevalueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT salehgehadahmad valueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT razekahmedabdelkhalekabdel valueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT elserougylamiaagalal valueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT shabanawalaa valueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 AT elwahabrihameabd valueoftheapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalueintheliverimagingreportinganddatasystemliradsversion2018 |