Reliability of extracellular contrast versus gadoxetic acid in assessing small liver lesions using liver imaging reporting and data system v.2018 and European association for the study of the liver criteria. Issue 5 (8th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rimola, Jordi; Sapena, Víctor; Brancatelli, Giuseppe; Darnell, Anna; Forzenigo, Laura; Mähringer‐Kunz, Aline; Paisant, Anita; Renzulli, Matteo; Schima, Wolfgang; Terraz, Sylvain; Valls, Carlos; Wagner, Mathilde; Ayuso, Carmen; Vilgrain, Valerie; Reig, Maria; Ronot, Maxime
• Is Part Of: Hepatology. Volume 76:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 1318
• Page End: 1328
• Publication Date: 2022-06-08
• Subjects: Heart -- Diseases -- Nursing -- Periodicals; Lungs -- Diseases -- Nursing -- Periodicals; Intensive care nursing -- Periodicals; Foie -- Maladies -- Périodiques; 616.362
• DOI: 10.1002/hep.32494
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0270-9139

Abstract

Abstract: Background & Aims: The diagnostic accuracy of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI‐RADS) v.2018 and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria for the diagnosis of HCC have been widely evaluated, but their reliability should be investigated. We aimed to assess and compare the reliability of LI‐RADS v.2018 and EASL criteria for the diagnosis of HCC using MRI with extracellular contrast agents (ECAs) and gadoxetic acid (GA) and determine the effect of ancillary features on LI‐RADS reliability. Approach & Results: Ten readers reviewed MRI studies of 92 focal liver lesions measuring <3 cm acquired with ECAs and GA <1 month apart from two prospective trials, assessing EASL criteria, LI‐RADS major and ancillary features, and LI‐RADS categorization with and without including ancillary features. Inter‐reader agreement for definite HCC diagnosis was substantial and similar for the two contrasts for both EASL and LI‐RADS criteria. For ECA‐MRI and GA‐MRI, respectively, inter‐reader agreement was k = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63–0.81) and k = 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63–0.80); for nonrim hyperenhancement, k = 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54–0.72) and k = 0.57 (95% CI, 0.48–0.66); and for nonperipheral washout, k = 0.49 (95% CI, 0.40–0.59) and k = 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37–0.58) for enhancing capsule. The inter‐reader agreement for LI‐RADS after applying ancillary features remained in the same range of agreement. Conclusions: Agreement for definite HCC was substantial and similar for both scoring systems and the two contrast agents in small focal liver lesions. Agreement for LI‐RADS categorization was lower for both contrast agents, and including LI‐RADS ancillary features did not improve agreement. Abstract : The reliability of extracellular contrast and gadolinium in small liver lesions using LI‐RADS and EASL criteria have been investigated. The agreement for definite HCC was substantial and similar for both contrast agents and scoring systems, but the agreement for LI‐RADS categorization was lower.