Abstract
Objective
To compare the diagnostic performance of various guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis using computed tomography (CT) in patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT).
Methods
In total, 216 patients who underwent preoperative CT and subsequent LT were included. Two radiologists retrospectively evaluated focal hepatic lesions independently according to various guidelines and allocated patients according to the Milan criteria. The diagnostic performance of the guidelines was compared using alternative free-response receiver-operating characteristics (AFROC) analysis with bootstrapping. Comparisons of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of patient allocation based on the Milan criteria between guidelines were performed using logistic regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE).
Results
Fifty-two of 216 patients had 87 HCCs. The reader-averaged figure of merit obtained using AFROC analysis was 0.738 for the AASLD/EASL or KLCSG-NCC guidelines and 0.728 for the LI-RADS v2014 or OPTN/UNOS (bootstrapping, p = 0.005). The per-lesion sensitivity for HCCs (all and 1–2-cm lesions) was significantly higher with the AASLD/EASL (37.9–41.4% and 30.8–41.0%) than with LI-RADS (28.7% and 15.4–18.0%) (logistic regression with GEE, p = 0.008 and 0.030 for reader 1 and p = 0.005 for reader 2). The per-patient specificity (98.8–99.4%) was the same for all guidelines. The accuracy of the Milan criteria was 81.5–83.3% without significant differences among the four guidelines (logistic regression with GEE, p > 0.05).
Conclusion
AASLD/EASL showed higher diagnostic performance and sensitivity, particularly for 1–2-cm HCCs, and the same specificity with LI-RADS. All guidelines are comparable for patient allocation based on the Milan criteria for LT.
Key Points
• The overall diagnostic performance of CT for HCC diagnosis was highest with AASLD/EASL.
• AASLD/EASL showed higher sensitivity for diagnosis of 1–2-cm HCCs than LI-RADS.
• The accuracy of the Milan criteria using CT was comparable among the four guidelines.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- AASLD:
-
American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
- AFROC:
-
Alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics
- CT:
-
Computed tomography
- EASL:
-
European Association for the Study of the Liver
- EORTC:
-
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer
- FOM:
-
Figure of merit
- GEE:
-
Generalized estimating equation
- HCC:
-
Hepatocellular carcinoma
- KLCSG-NCC:
-
Korean Liver Cancer Study Group and the National Cancer Center
- LI-RADS:
-
Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System
- LT:
-
Liver transplantation
- MC:
-
Milan criteria
- MRI:
-
Magnetic resonance imaging
- OPTN:
-
Organ Procurement and Transplant Network
- UNOS:
-
United Network for Organ Sharing
References
Clavien PA, Lesurtel M, Bossuyt PM, Gores GJ, Langer B, Perrier A (2012) Recommendations for liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: an international consensus conference report. Lancet Oncol 13:e11–e22
Yu SJ (2016) A concise review of updated guidelines regarding the management of hepatocellular carcinoma around the world: 2010-2016. Clin Mol Hepatol 22:7–17
Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R et al (1996) Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 334:693–699
Befeler AS, Hayashi PH, Di Bisceglie AM (2005) Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 128:1752–1764
Wald C, Russo MW, Heimbach JK, Hussain HK, Pomfret EA, Bruix J (2013) New OPTN/UNOS policy for liver transplant allocation: standardization of liver imaging, diagnosis, classification, and reporting of hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 266:376–382
Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 61:1056–1065
American College of Radiology. Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS). American College of Radiology. Web site. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS/LIRADS-v2014. Accessed June 1, 2017
Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022
European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2012) EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 56:908–943
Lee JM, Park JW, Choi BI (2014) 2014 KLCSG-NCC Korea Practice Guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: HCC diagnostic algorithm. Dig Dis 32:764–777
Korean Liver Cancer Study Group (KLCSG) and National Cancer Center, Korea (NCC) (2015) 2014 Korean Liver Cancer Study Group-National Cancer Center Korea practice guideline for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 16:465–522
Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (2017) Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI: 2016 Consensus Recommendations of the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology. Korean J Radiol 18:427–443
Kokudo N, Hasegawa K, Akahane M et al (2015) Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Japan Society of Hepatology 2013 update (3rd JSH-HCC Guidelines). Hepatol Res 45
Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R et al (2010) Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int 4:439–474
Tang A, Fowler KJ, Chernyak V, Chapman WC, Sirlin CB (2017) LI-RADS and transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1210-8
Lee DH, Lee JM, Baek JH, Shin CI, Han JK, Choi BI (2015) Diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging in the detection of HCCs and allocation of transplant recipients on the basis of the Milan criteria and UNOS guidelines: correlation with histopathologic findings. Radiology 274:149–160
Edmondson HA, Steiner PE (1954) Primary carcinoma of the liver: a study of 100 cases among 48,900 necropsies. Cancer 7:462–503
Chakraborty DP, Berbaum KS (2004) Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. Med Phys 31:2313–2330
Zhai X, Chakraborty DP (2015). RJafroc: Analysis of data acquired using the receiver operating characteristic paradigm and its extensions. R package version 0.1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RJafroc
Ronot M, Fouque O, Esvan M, Lebigot J, Aube C, Vilgrain V (2017) Comparison of the accuracy of AASLD and LI-RADS criteria for the non-invasive diagnosis of HCC smaller than 3cm. J Hepatol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.12.014
Manini MA, Sangiovanni A, Fornari F et al (2014) Clinical and economical impact of 2010 AASLD guidelines for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 60:995–1001
Kim TK, Lee KH, Jang HJ et al (2011) Analysis of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR findings for characterizing small (1-2-cm) hepatic nodules in patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 259:730–738
Aube C, Oberti F, Lonjon J et al (2017) EASL and AASLD recommendations for the diagnosis of HCC to the test of daily practice. Liver Int 37:1515–1525
Pahwa A, Beckett K, Channual S, Tan N, Lu DS, Raman SS (2014) 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
Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee JS et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 275:97–109
Ronzoni A, Artioli D, Scardina R et al (2007) Role of MDCT in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:792–798
Luca A, Caruso S, Milazzo M et al (2010) Multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic candidates for liver transplantation: prevalence of radiological vascular patterns and histological correlation with liver explants. Eur Radiol 20:898–907
Rimola J, Forner A, Tremosini S et al (2012) Non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma </= 2 cm in cirrhosis. Diagnostic accuracy assessing fat, capsule and signal intensity at dynamic MRI. J Hepatol 56:1317–1323
Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuso 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 47:97–104
Rostambeigi N, Taylor AJ, Golzarian J et al (2016) Effect of MRI Versus MDCT on Milan Criteria Scores and Liver Transplantation Eligibility. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:726–733
Addley HC, Griffin N, Shaw AS et al (2011) Accuracy of hepatocellular carcinoma detection on multidetector CT in a transplant liver population with explant liver correlation. Clin Radiol 66:349–356
Park MS, Kim S, Patel J et al (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with diffusion-weighted versus contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in pretransplant patients. Hepatology 56:140–148
Heimbach J, Kulik LM, Finn R et al (2017) Aasld guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29086
Roberts LR, Sirlin CB, Zaiem F et al (2017) Imaging for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Hepatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29487
Funding
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Guarantor
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Mi-Suk Park.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
Kyunghwa Han from Yonsei Biomedical Research Institute, who is one of the coauthors, performed statistical analysis.
Informed consent
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Methodology
• retrospective
• diagnostic study
• performed at one institution
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 27.3 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seo, N., Kim, M.S., Park, MS. et al. Optimal criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis using CT in patients undergoing liver transplantation. Eur Radiol 29, 1022–1031 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5557-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5557-1