Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacy of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and Barcelona criteria for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT scan and MRI are essential for preoperative diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), using the established Barcelona and AASLD criteria, which have been validated in only a few reports. The aim of this study is to retrospectively assess the diagnostic performance of these criteria in diagnosing or excluding HCC in at-risk patients with histopathology confirmation.

Methods

After institutional review board approval, a HIPAA compliant study was performed. The study cohort consisted of 156 de novo hepatic nodules imaged by either dynamic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI within 90 days of histopathology. Images were retrospectively reviewed by two abdominal radiologists blinded to clinical details, and all nodules were categorized as either meeting or not meeting AASLD and Barcelona criteria. By AASLD or Barcelona criteria, HCC was defined as any nodule greater than or equal to 1 or 2 cm, respectively, with hyperenhancement relative to background liver on arterial phase and hypoenhancement relative to background liver on portal venous or delayed phases. Significant differences in cohorts were analyzed using chi squared analysis (p < 0.05).

Results

On biopsy, 141/156 (90.38%) nodules were diagnosed as HCC. The respective sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and positive predictive value of AASLD and Barcelona were 78.7% and 63.1% (sensitivity), 73.3% and 86.7% (specificity), 78.2% and 65.4% (accuracy), and 82% and 63% (positive predictive value) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Using established imaging criteria, up to 21.8% of presumed HCC nodules are inaccurately characterized and many small HCC nodules remain undiagnosed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AASLD:

American Association for the Study of Liver Disease

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

CT:

Computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

HIPAA:

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act

G:

Gauge

AUC:

Area under the curve

ROC:

Receiver-operating curve

RFA:

Radiofrequency ablation

T:

Tesla

NAFLD:

Non alcoholic fatty liver disease

References

  1. Gomaa AI, Khan SA, Toledano MB, et al. (2008) Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology, risk factors and pathogenesis. World J Gastroenterol 14:4300–4308

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. El-Sarag H (2004) Hepatocellular carcinoma: recent trends in the United States. Gastroenterology 127(5):S27–S34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bruix J, Sherman M, Lovet J, et al. (2001) Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL Conference. J Hepatol 35(3):421–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022

    Google Scholar 

  5. Stigliano R, Marelli L, Yu D, et al. (2007) Seeding following percutaneous diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for hepatocelluar carcinoma. What is the risk and the outcome? Seeding risk for percutaneous approach of HCC. Cancer Treat Rev 33(5):437–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuoso C, et al. (2008) Diagnosis of hepatic nodules 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis: prospective validation of the noninvasive diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 47(1):97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sangiovanni A, Manini M, Iavarone M, et al. (2010) The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 59:638–644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Group (2003) MRI Angiography is superior to helical CT for detection of HCC prior to liver transplantation: an explant correlation. Hepatology 38(4):1034–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mayo Clinic (2012) The MELD model, UNOS modification. Rochester, Minn. http://www.mayoclinic.org/meld/mayomodel6.html. Accessed 15 Feb 2014

  10. Wald C, Russo M, Heimbach J, et al. (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 266:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hayashi PH, Trotter JF, Forman L, et al. (2004) Impact of pretransplant diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma on cadaveric liver allocation in the era of MELD. Liver Transpl 10:42–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wiesner RH, Freeman RB, Mulligan DC (2004) Liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: the impact of the MELD allocation policy. Gastroenterology 127(S1):S261–S267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mullhaupt B, Durand F, Roksams T, et al. (2011) Is tumor biopsy necessary? Liver Transpl 17:S14–S25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kojiro M, Nakashima O (1999) Histopatholic evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma with special reference to small early stage tumors. Semin Liver Dis 19:287–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sasaki Y, Imaoka S, Ishiguro S, et al. (1996) Clinical features of small hepatocellular carcinomas as assessed by histologic grades. Surgery 119:252–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Takayama T, Makuuchi M, Hirohashi S, et al. (1998) Early hepatocellular carcinoma as an entity with a high rage of surgical cure. Hepatology 28:1241–1246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Radiology. Liver imaging reporting and data system version 2013.1. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS. Accessed 15 Feb 2014

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, 14445 Olive View Drive, Sylmar, CA, 91342, USA

    Anokh Pahwa

  2. Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, UCLA Medical Center, 757 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA

    Katrina Beckett, Stephanie Channual, Nelly Tan, David S. Lu & Steven S. Raman

Authors
  1. Anokh Pahwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrina Beckett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Channual
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nelly Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David S. Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Steven S. Raman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anokh Pahwa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pahwa, A., Beckett, K., Channual, S. et al. Efficacy of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease and Barcelona criteria for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 39, 753–760 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0118-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0118-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation