Does quantitative assessment of arterial phase hyperenhancement and washout improve LI-RADS v2018–based classification of liver lesions?

• DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06596-9
• Publication Date: 2020-02-04T18:02:47Z
• Authors: Daniel Stocker; Anton S. Becker; Borna K. Barth; Stephan Skawran; Malwina Kaniewska; Michael A. Fischer; Olivio Donati; Caecilia S. Reiner
• Keywords: Adult; Male; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Contrast Media; 610 Medicine & health; Sensitivity and Specificity; Liver neoplasm; 03 medical and health sciences; hepatocellular; Magnetic resonance imaging; 0302 clinical medicine; 2741 Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging; Humans; Aged; Retrospective Studies; Observer Variation; 10042 Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology; Carcinoma; Liver Neoplasms; Reproducibility of Results; General Medicine; Middle Aged; Image Enhancement; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Radiology Information Systems; Liver; Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Area Under Curve; Female; Algorithms

To compare interreader agreement and diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS v2018 categorization using quantitative versus qualitative MRI assessment of arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and washout (WO) of focal liver lesions.Sixty patients (19 female; mean age, 56 years) at risk for HCC with 71 liver lesions (28 HCCs, 43 benign) who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI were included in this retrospective study. Four blinded radiologists independently assigned a qualitative LI-RADS score per lesion. Two other radiologists placed ROIs within the lesion, adjacent liver parenchyma, and paraspinal musculature on pre- and post-contrast MR images. The percentage of arterial enhancement and the liver-to-lesion contrast ratio were calculated for quantification of APHE and WO. Using these quantitative parameters, a quantitative LI-RADS score was assigned. Interreader agreement and AUCs were calculated.Interreader agreement was similar for qualitative and quantitative LI-RADS (κ = 0.38 vs. 0.40-0.47) with a tendency towards improved agreement for quantitatively assessed APHE (κ = 0.65 vs. 0.81) and WO (κ = 0.53 vs. 0.78). Qualitative LI-RADS showed an AUC of 0.86, 0.94, 0.94, and 0.91 for readers 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The quantitative LI-RADS score where APHE/WO/or both were replaced showed an AUC of 0.89/0.84/0.89, 0.95/0.92/0.92, 0.93/0.91/0.89, and 0.91/0.86/0.88 for readers 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Sensitivity of LR-4/5 slightly increased, while specificity slightly decreased using quantitative APHE.Qualitative and quantitative LI-RADS showed similar performance. Quantitatively assessed APHE showed the potential to increase interreader agreement and sensitivity of HCC diagnosis, whereas quantitatively assessed WO had the opposite effect and needs to be redefined.• Quantitative assessment of arterial phase hyperenhancement shows the potential to increase interreader agreement and sensitivity to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma. • Adding quantitative measurements of major LI-RADS features does not improve accuracy over qualitative assessment alone according to the LI-RADS v2018 algorithm.