Advertisement

Assessment of primary liver carcinomas other than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with LI-RADS v2018: comparison of the LI-RADS target population to patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors

  • Tyler J. FraumEmail author
  • Roberto Cannella
  • Daniel R. Ludwig
  • Richard Tsai
  • Muhammad Naeem
  • Maverick LeBlanc
  • Amber Salter
  • Allan Tsung
  • Anup S. Shetty
  • Amir A. Borhani
  • Alessandro Furlan
  • Kathryn J. Fowler
Gastrointestinal

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether the LI-RADS imaging features of primary liver carcinomas (PLCs) other than hepatocellular carcinoma (non-HCC PLCs) differ between patients considered high risk (RF+) versus not high risk (RF−) for HCC and to compare rates of miscategorization as probable or definite HCC between the RF+ and RF− populations.

Methods

This retrospective study included all pathology-proven non-HCC PLCs imaged with liver-protocol CT or MRI from 2007 to 2017 at two liver transplant centers. Patients were defined per LI-RADS v2018 criteria as RF+ or RF−. Two independent, blinded readers (R1, R2) categorized 265 lesions using LI-RADS v2018. Logistic regression was utilized to assess for differences in imaging feature frequencies between RF+ and RF− patients. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess for differences in miscategorization rates.

Results

Non-HCC PLCs were significantly more likely to exhibit nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (R1: OR = 2.94; R2: OR = 7.09) and nonperipheral “washout” (R1: OR = 3.65; R2: OR = 7.69) but significantly less likely to exhibit peripheral “washout” (R1: OR = 0.30; R2: OR = 0.10) and delayed central enhancement (R1: OR = 0.18; R2: OR = 0.25) in RF+ patients relative to RF− patients. Consequently, non-HCC PLCs were more often miscategorized as probable or definite HCC in RF+ versus RF− patients (R1: 23.3% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001; R2: 11.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.009).

Conclusions

Non-HCC PLCs are more likely to mimic HCCs on CT and MRI in the LI-RADS target population than in patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors.

Key Points

The presence of LI-RADS-defined risk factors for HCC tends to alter the imaging appearances of non-HCC PLCs, resulting in higher frequencies of major features and lower frequencies of LR-M features.

Non-HCC PLCs are more likely to be miscategorized as probable or definite HCC in the LI-RADS target population than in patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors.

Keywords

Bile duct neoplasms Liver neoplasms Cholangiocarcinoma Carcinoma, hepatocellular Liver cirrhosis 

Abbreviations

APHE

Arterial phase hyperenhancement

cHCC-CCA

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma

DCE

Dynamic contrast-enhanced

HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma

iCCA

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

LI-RADS

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System

LR-M

LI-RADS category indicating that lesion is likely malignant but not necessarily HCC

RF−

LI-RADS-defined risk factors for HCC absent

RF+

LI-RADS-defined risk factors for HCC present

Notes

Funding information

The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Dr. Ludwig receives salary support from the Training OPportunities in Translational Imaging Education and Research (TOP-TIER) Holden Thorp grant at Washington University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Fraum.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (Dr. Salter) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

In a study previously published in Abdominal Radiology, we reported on the 48 cHCC-CCAs and 25 iCCAs from the at-risk cohort in the current study. Additionally, we have a manuscript accepted (currently in press) by HPB that includes 20 of 44 cHCC-CCAs and 84 of 148 iCCAs from the not at-risk cohort in the current study. Importantly, both this previously published study and the in press manuscript focus on the diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS v2018 for differentiating HCCs from non-HCC malignancies. In contrast, the current manuscript focuses exclusively on the non-HCC malignancies and addresses a completely different question (specifically, whether there are significant differences in the imaging appearances non-HCC PLCs in the at-risk versus not at-risk cohorts).

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Multicenter study

Supplementary material

330_2019_6448_MOESM1_ESM.docx (49 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 49 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A et al (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology 289:816–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brunt E, Aishima S, Clavien PA et al (2018) cHCC-CCA: consensus terminology for primary liver carcinomas with both hepatocytic and cholangiocytic differentiation. Hepatology 68:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fowler KJ, Potretzke TA, Hope TA, Costa EA, Wilson SR (2018) LI-RADSM(LR-M): definite or probable malignancy, not specific for hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tang A, Hallouch O, Chernyak V, Kamaya A, Sirlin CB (2018) Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: target population for surveillance and diagnosis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xu J, Igarashi S, Sasaki M et al (2012) Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas in cirrhosis are hypervascular in comparison with those in normal livers. Liver Int 32:1156–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunt EM, Paradis V, Sempoux C, Theise ND (2015) Biphenotypic (hepatobiliary) primary liver carcinomas: the work in progress. Hepatic Oncol 2:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N et al (2006) Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology 43:1317–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraum TJ, Fowler KJ, Rohe E et al (2017) Differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from other hepatic malignancies in patients at risk: diagnostic performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2014. Radiology 286:158–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corwin MT, Fananapazir G, Jin M, Lamba R, Bashir MR (2016) Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System categorization between MRI and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hochberg Y, Benjamini Y (1990) More powerful procedures for multiple significance testing. Stat Med 9:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi SH, Lee SS, Park SH et al (2019) LI-RADS classification and prognosis of primary liver cancers at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. Radiology 290:388–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sorensen HT, Friis S, Olsen JH et al (1998) Risk of liver and other types of cancer in patients with cirrhosis: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Hepatology 28:921–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tang A, Bashir MR, Corwin MT et al (2017) Evidence supporting LI-RADS major features for CT- andMR imaging–based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Radiology 286:170554Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Potretzke TA, Tan BR, Doyle MB et al (2016) Imaging features of biphenotypic primary liver carcinoma (hepatocholangiocarcinoma) and the potential to mimic hepatocellular carcinoma: LI-RADS analysis of CT and MRI features in 61 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler KJ, Sheybani A, Parker RA 3rd et al (2013) Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (biphenotypic) tumors: imaging features and diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:332–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee HS, Kim MJ, An C (2019) How to utilize LR-Mfeatures of the LI-RADS to improve the diagnosis of combined hepatocellularcholangiocarcinoma on gadoxetate-enhanced MRI? Eur Radiol 29:2408–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aoki K, Takayasu K, Kawano T et al (1993) Combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: clinical features and computed tomographic findings. Hepatology 18:1090–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Campos RO, Semelka RC, Azevedo RMet al (2012) Combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma: report of MR appearance in eleven patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1139–1147Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ebied O, Federle MP, Blachar A et al (2003) Hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma:helical computed tomography findings in 30 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jarnagin WR, Weber S, Tickoo SK et al (2002) Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma: demographic, clinical, and prognostic factors. Cancer 94:2040–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nishie A, Yoshimitsu K, Asayama Y et al (2005) Detection of combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinomas on enhanced CT: comparison with histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1157–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sanada Y, Shiozaki S, Aoki H et al (2005) A clinical study of 11 cases of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. Assessment of enhancement patterns on dynamics computed tomography before resection. Hepatol Res 32:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wells ML, Venkatesh SK, Chandan VS et al (2015) Biphenotypic hepatic tumors: imaging findings and review of literature. Abdom Imaging 40:2293–2305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Park SH, Lee SS, Yu E et al (2017) Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma:gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI findings correlated with pathologic features and prognosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jeon SK, Joo I, Lee DH et al (2019) Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: LI-RADS v2017 categorisation for differential diagnosis and prognostication on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 29:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheng RF, Xie YH, Ji Y et al (2016) MR comparative study of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in normal, fibrotic, and cirrhotic livers. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:2102–2114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gülberg V, Haag K, Rössle M, Gerbes AL (2002) Hepatic arterial buffer response in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Hepatology 35:630–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    IavaroneM PF, Vavassori S et al (2013) Contrast enhanced CT-scan to diagnose intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol 58:1188–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kang Y, Lee JM, Kim SH et al (2012) Intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma: enhancement patterns on gadoxetic acid–enhanced MR images. Radiology 264:751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rimola J, Forner A, Reig M et al (2009) Cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis: absence of contrast washout in delayed phases by magnetic resonance imaging avoids misdiagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 50:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Péporté AR, Sommer WH, Nikolaou K et al (2013) Imaging features of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Gd-EOB-DTPAenhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 82:e101–e106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sammon J, Fischer S, Menezes R et al (2018) MRI features of combined hepatocellular- cholangiocarcinoma versusmass forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer Imaging 18:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Choi SY, Kim YK, Min JH et al (2018) Added value of ancillary imaging features for differentiating scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma on gadoxetic acidenhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 28:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wengert GJ, Baltzer PAT, Bickel H et al (2017) Differentiation of intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver using contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol 24:1491–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Choi SH, Lee SS, Kim SY et al (2017) Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: differentiation from hepatocellular carcinoma by using gadoxetic acid–enhanced MR imaging and dynamic CT. Radiology 282:771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li F, Li Q, Liu Yet al (2019) Distinguishing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma risks: the evaluation of the LR-M criteria of contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system version 2017. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06317-2
  38. 38.
    Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Liu PS et al (2014) Repeatability of diagnostic features and scoring systems for hepatocellular carcinoma by using MR imaging. Radiology 272:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kierans AS, Makkar J, Guniganti P et al (2019) Validation of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System 2017 (LI-RADS) criteria for imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:e205–e215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zen C, Zen Y, Mitry RR et al (2011) Mixed phenotype hepatocellular carcinoma after transarterial chemoembolization and liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 17:943–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler J. Fraum
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roberto Cannella
    • 2
    • 3
  • Daniel R. Ludwig
    • 1
  • Richard Tsai
    • 1
  • Muhammad Naeem
    • 1
  • Maverick LeBlanc
    • 1
  • Amber Salter
    • 4
  • Allan Tsung
    • 5
  • Anup S. Shetty
    • 1
  • Amir A. Borhani
    • 2
  • Alessandro Furlan
    • 2
  • Kathryn J. Fowler
    • 6
  1. 1.Mallinckrodt Institute of RadiologyWashington University School of MedicineSaint LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, University of PalermoUniversity Hospital “Paolo Giaccone”PalermoItaly
  4. 4.Division of BiostatisticsWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryOhio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations