Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether focal liver observations are categorized differently by CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a retrospective review of 58 patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver protocol CT and MRI within 1 month of each other. Two readers assigned a LI-RADS category for all focal liver observations in consensus. A significant category upgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS categories 1 and 2 or nonvisualization to LI-RADS categories 3-5, from LI-RADS category 3 to category 4 or 5, from LI-RADS category 4 to category 5, or from any category to LI-RADS category 5V. A significant downgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS category 5 to categories 1-4, from LI-RADS category 4 to categories 1-3, or from LI-RADS category 3 to categories 1 or 2. RESULTS. The LI-RADS category was different between CT and MRI for 77.2% (176/228) of observations. A significant upgrade occurred on MRI for 42.5% (97/228) of observations because of nonvisualization by CT (n = 78), capsule (n = 8), arterial hyperenhancement (n = 4), intratumoral fat (n = 2), larger size (n = 2), tumor in portal vein (n = 2), and washout (n = 1). Of these 97 upgraded observations, two were upgraded to LI-RADS category 5V, 15 were upgraded to category 5, and 13 were upgraded to category 4. A significant downgrade occurred on MRI for 8.8% (20/228) of observations because of marked T2 hyperintensity (n = 14), smaller size (n = 2), wedge shape (n = 2), and marked T2 hypointensity (n = 2). CONCLUSION. LI-RADS categorization of focal liver observations is dependent on imaging modality. MRI results in both upgraded and downgraded categorization compared with CT in an important proportion of observations.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 307-312 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | American Journal of Roentgenology |
| Volume | 206 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Feb 1 2016 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- CT
- Hepatocellular carcinoma
- LI-RADS
- MRI
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
Differences in liver imaging and reporting data system categorization between MRI and CT. / Corwin, Michael T; Fananapazir, Ghaneh; Jin, Michael; Lamba, Ramit; Bashir, Mustafa R.
In: American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 206, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 307-312.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Differences in liver imaging and reporting data system categorization between MRI and CT
AU - Corwin, Michael T
AU - Fananapazir, Ghaneh
AU - Jin, Michael
AU - Lamba, Ramit
AU - Bashir, Mustafa R.
PY - 2016/2/1
Y1 - 2016/2/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether focal liver observations are categorized differently by CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a retrospective review of 58 patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver protocol CT and MRI within 1 month of each other. Two readers assigned a LI-RADS category for all focal liver observations in consensus. A significant category upgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS categories 1 and 2 or nonvisualization to LI-RADS categories 3-5, from LI-RADS category 3 to category 4 or 5, from LI-RADS category 4 to category 5, or from any category to LI-RADS category 5V. A significant downgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS category 5 to categories 1-4, from LI-RADS category 4 to categories 1-3, or from LI-RADS category 3 to categories 1 or 2. RESULTS. The LI-RADS category was different between CT and MRI for 77.2% (176/228) of observations. A significant upgrade occurred on MRI for 42.5% (97/228) of observations because of nonvisualization by CT (n = 78), capsule (n = 8), arterial hyperenhancement (n = 4), intratumoral fat (n = 2), larger size (n = 2), tumor in portal vein (n = 2), and washout (n = 1). Of these 97 upgraded observations, two were upgraded to LI-RADS category 5V, 15 were upgraded to category 5, and 13 were upgraded to category 4. A significant downgrade occurred on MRI for 8.8% (20/228) of observations because of marked T2 hyperintensity (n = 14), smaller size (n = 2), wedge shape (n = 2), and marked T2 hypointensity (n = 2). CONCLUSION. LI-RADS categorization of focal liver observations is dependent on imaging modality. MRI results in both upgraded and downgraded categorization compared with CT in an important proportion of observations.
AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to determine whether focal liver observations are categorized differently by CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We performed a retrospective review of 58 patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver protocol CT and MRI within 1 month of each other. Two readers assigned a LI-RADS category for all focal liver observations in consensus. A significant category upgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS categories 1 and 2 or nonvisualization to LI-RADS categories 3-5, from LI-RADS category 3 to category 4 or 5, from LI-RADS category 4 to category 5, or from any category to LI-RADS category 5V. A significant downgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS category 5 to categories 1-4, from LI-RADS category 4 to categories 1-3, or from LI-RADS category 3 to categories 1 or 2. RESULTS. The LI-RADS category was different between CT and MRI for 77.2% (176/228) of observations. A significant upgrade occurred on MRI for 42.5% (97/228) of observations because of nonvisualization by CT (n = 78), capsule (n = 8), arterial hyperenhancement (n = 4), intratumoral fat (n = 2), larger size (n = 2), tumor in portal vein (n = 2), and washout (n = 1). Of these 97 upgraded observations, two were upgraded to LI-RADS category 5V, 15 were upgraded to category 5, and 13 were upgraded to category 4. A significant downgrade occurred on MRI for 8.8% (20/228) of observations because of marked T2 hyperintensity (n = 14), smaller size (n = 2), wedge shape (n = 2), and marked T2 hypointensity (n = 2). CONCLUSION. LI-RADS categorization of focal liver observations is dependent on imaging modality. MRI results in both upgraded and downgraded categorization compared with CT in an important proportion of observations.
KW - CT
KW - Hepatocellular carcinoma
KW - LI-RADS
KW - MRI
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956827003&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84956827003&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2214/AJR.15.14788
DO - 10.2214/AJR.15.14788
M3 - Article
C2 - 26797357
AN - SCOPUS:84956827003
VL - 206
SP - 307
EP - 312
JO - American Journal of Roentgenology
JF - American Journal of Roentgenology
SN - 0361-803X
IS - 2
ER -