Letter to the Editor: Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance in High‐Risk Patients With Cirrhosis: Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound May Be a Choice

Hepatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 392-392
Author(s):  
Jiangfa Li ◽  
Jiming Wang ◽  
Shuiping Yu ◽  
Guandou Yuan ◽  
Songqing He
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Letter To The Editor ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Diagnostic Performance and Interobserver Agreement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hang Zhou ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Linyao Du ◽  
Jiapeng Jiang ◽  
Qing Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Data System ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Sensitivity Range ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Objectives To determine the diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement of the contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system (CEUS-LI-RADS) for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. Methods In this prospective study, CEUS-LI-RADS categories (LR-5 for predicting HCC) were assigned by six blinded readers and compared to the definitive HCC diagnosis in patients with liver cirrhosis per the 2017 China Liver Cancer Guidelines (CLCG). CEUS features were recorded in 96 patients with 96 histology-proven lesions. The diagnostic performance of LR-5 was described by the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Multi-reader agreement was assessed by using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results In cirrhotic patients, the specificity of LR-5 (range: 92.7–100.0 %) was statistically higher than that of CLCG for each reader (range: 28.6–64.3 %). However, the sensitivity (range: 38.6–63.6 %) and accuracy (range: 53.4–70.7 %) were statistically lower in CEUS-LIRADS than in CLCG (sensitivity range: 88.6–100.0 %; accuracy range: 77.6–86.2 %). Only fair to moderate inter-reader agreement was achieved for the CEUS-LI-RADS category (ICC = 0.595) and washout appearance (ICC range: 0.338 to 0.555). Neither nodule-in-nodule nor mosaic architecture was observed more often in HCC (all P > 0.05), with poor inter-reader consistency for both (both ICC < 0.20). Conclusion CEUS-LI-RADS category 5 has a high specificity but a low accuracy for identifying HCC in high-risk patients. Inter-reader agreement is not satisfactory concerning CEUS-LIRADS category and washout appearance. Moreover, the clinical value of ancillary features favoring HCC is quite limited.

scholarly journals Interobserver Agreement for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS)-Based Standardized Algorithms for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in High-Risk Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (06) ◽  
pp. 667-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Schellhaas ◽  
Lukas Pfeifer ◽  
Christian Kielisch ◽  
Ruediger Goertz ◽  
Markus Neurath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Late Phase ◽  
Arterial Phase ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Objectives This pilot study aimed at assessing interobserver agreement with two contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) algorithms for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. Methods Focal liver lesions in 55 high-risk patients were assessed independently by three blinded observers with two standardized CEUS algorithms: ESCULAP (Erlanger Synopsis of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Liver Lesion Assessment in Patients at risk) and ACR-CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016 (American College of Radiology CEUS-Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System). Lesions were categorized according to size and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the arterial, portal-venous and late phase. Interobserver agreement for assessment of enhancement pattern and categorization was compared between both CEUS algorithms. Additionally, diagnostic accuracy for the definitive diagnosis of HCC was compared. Histology and/or CE-MRI and follow-up served as reference standards. Results 55 patients were included in the study (male/female, 44/ 11; mean age: 65.9 years). 90.9 % had cirrhosis. Histological findings were available in 39/55 lesions (70.9 %). Reference standard of the 55 lesions revealed 48 HCCs, 2 intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinomas (ICCs), and 5 non-HCC-non-ICC lesions. Interobserver agreement was moderate to substantial for arterial phase hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.53 – 0.67), and fair to moderate for contrast washout in the portal-venous or late phase (ĸ = 0.33 – 0.53). Concerning the CEUS-based algorithms, the interreader agreement was substantial for the ESCULAP category (ĸ = 0.64 – 0.68) and fair for the CEUS-LI-RADS® category (ĸ = 0.3 – 0.39). Disagreement between observers was mostly due to different perception of washout. Conclusion Interobserver agreement is better for ESCULAP than for CEUS-LI-RADS®. This is mostly due to the fact that perception of contrast washout varies between different observers. However, interobserver agreement is good for arterial phase hyperenhancement, which is the key diagnostic feature for the diagnosis of HCC with CEUS in the cirrhotic liver.

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Algorithms (CEUS-LIRADS/ESCULAP) for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma – A Prospective Multicenter DEGUM Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Schellhaas ◽  
Thomas Bernatik ◽  
Wolfram Bohle ◽  
Fanny Borowitzka ◽  
Johannes Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Liver Lesion ◽  
Noninvasive Diagnosis ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Cirrhotic Patients

Abstract Background This prospective multicenter study funded by the DEGUM assesses the diagnostic accuracy of standardized contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. Methods Patients at high risk for HCC with a histologically proven focal liver lesion on B-mode ultrasound were recruited prospectively in a multicenter approach. Clinical and imaging data were entered via online entry forms. The diagnostic accuracies for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC were compared for the conventional interpretation of standardized CEUS at the time of the examination (= CEUS on-site) and the two CEUS algorithms ESCULAP (Erlanger Synopsis for Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at risk) and CEUS LI-RADS (Contrast-Enhanced UltraSound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System). Results 321 patients were recruited in 43 centers; 299 (93.1 %) had liver cirrhosis. The diagnosis according to histology was HCC in 256 cases, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in 23 cases. In the subgroup of cirrhotic patients (n = 299), the highest sensitivity for the diagnosis of HCC was achieved with the CEUS algorithm ESCULAP (94.2 %) and CEUS on-site (90.9 %). The lowest sensitivity was reached with the CEUS LI-RADS algorithm (64 %; p < 0.001). However, the specificity of CEUS LI-RADS (78.9 %) was superior to that of ESCULAP (50.9 %) and CEUS on-site (64.9 %; p < 0.001). At the same time, the negative predictive value (NPV) of CEUS LI-RADS was significantly inferior to that of ESCULAP (34.1 % vs. 67.4 %; p < 0.001) and CEUS on-site (62.7 %; p < 0.001). The positive predictive values of all modalities were high (around 90 %), with the best results seen for CEUS LI-RADS and CEUS on-site. Conclusion This is the first multicenter, prospective comparison of standardized CEUS and the recently developed CEUS-based algorithms in histologically proven liver lesions in cirrhotic patients. Our results reaffirm the excellent diagnostic accuracy of CEUS for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. However, on-site diagnosis by an experienced examiner achieves an almost equal diagnostic accuracy compared to CEUS-based diagnostic algorithms.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (CEUS LI-RADS) for Differentiating Between Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Other Hepatic Malignancies in High-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiawu Li ◽  
Lulu Yang ◽  
Lin Ma ◽  
Qiang Lu ◽  
Yan Luo
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Hepatic Malignancies

Abstract Objectives The American College of Radiology (ACR) contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system (CEUS LI-RADS), which includes diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and other hepatic malignancies (OM), is increasingly used in clinical practice. This study performed a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS LI-RADS for differentiating between HCC and OM in high-risk patients. Methods PubMed, Embase (Ovid), and Cochrane (CENTRAL) were searched for relevant studies. All studies that reported the percentage of HCC and OM in the LI-RADS categories were included. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Results Eight studies involving 4215 focal liver lesions were included in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the LR-5 criteria for HCC were 0.71 (95 % CI, 0.69–0.72) and 0.88 (0.85–0.91), respectively, the DOR was 18.36 (7.41–45.52), and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.8128. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the LR-M criteria for OMs were 0.85 (0.81–0.88) and 0.86 (0.85–0.87), the DOR was 27.82 (11.83–65.40), respectively, and the SROC AUC was 0.9098. Conclusion The CEUS LI-RADS can effectively distinguish HCC from other hepatic malignancy in high-risk patients based on LR-5 criteria and LR-M criteria. However, further studies are needed for validation due to the limited number of included studies and the potential heterogeneity among the included studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document