Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제22권8호
  • /
  • Pages.1279-1288
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

LI-RADS Version 2018 Treatment Response Algorithm: Diagnostic Performance after Transarterial Radioembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

  • Jongjin Yoon (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sunyoung Lee (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jaeseung Shin (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Seung-seob Kim (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Gyoung Min Kim (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jong Yun Won (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2020.09.24
  • 심사 : 2021.02.04
  • 발행 : 2021.08.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 treatment response algorithm (TRA) for the evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial radioembolization. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent transarterial radioembolization for HCC followed by hepatic surgery between January 2011 and December 2019. The resected lesions were determined to have either complete (100%) or incomplete (< 100%) necrosis based on histopathology. Three radiologists independently reviewed the CT or MR images of pre- and post-treatment lesions and assigned categories based on the LI-RADS version 2018 and the TRA, respectively. Diagnostic performances of LI-RADS treatment response (LR-TR) viable and nonviable categories were assessed for each reader, using histopathology from hepatic surgeries as a reference standard. Inter-reader agreements were evaluated using Fleiss κ. Results: A total of 27 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 55.9 ± 9.1 years; 24 male) with 34 lesions (15 with complete necrosis and 19 with incomplete necrosis on histopathology) were included. To predict complete necrosis, the LR-TR nonviable category had a sensitivity of 73.3-80.0% and a specificity of 78.9-89.5%. For predicting incomplete necrosis, the LR-TR viable category had a sensitivity of 73.7-79.0% and a specificity of 93.3-100%. Five (14.7%) of 34 treated lesions were categorized as LR-TR equivocal by consensus, with two of the five lesions demonstrating incomplete necrosis. Interreader agreement for the LR-TR category was 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.66-0.96). Conclusion: The LI-RADS version 2018 TRA can be used to predict the histopathologic viability of HCCs treated with transarterial radioembolization.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. American College of Radiology. CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018. Acr.org Web site. https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/LI-RADS/CT-MRI-LI-RADS-v2018. Accessed August 12, 2018 
  2. Gervais DA. LI-RADS treatment response algorithm: performance and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2019;292:235-236 
  3. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, et al. Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018;68:723-750 
  4. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018;69:182-236 
  5. Kim HC. Radioembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Mol Hepatol 2017;23:109-114 
  6. Sangro B, Inarrairaegui M, Bilbao JI. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012;56:464-473 
  7. Sacco R, Mismas V, Marceglia S, Romano A, Giacomelli L, Bertini M, et al. Transarterial radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: an update and perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:6518-6525 
  8. Kulik LM, Carr BI, Mulcahy MF, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi B, Ryu RK, et al. Safety and efficacy of 90Y radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with and without portal vein thrombosis. Hepatology 2008;47:71-81 
  9. Hilgard P, Hamami M, Fouly AE, Scherag A, Muller S, Ertle J, et al. Radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: European experience on safety and long-term survival. Hepatology 2010;52:1741-1749 
  10. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Riaz A, Ryu RK, Ibrahim S, et al. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using Yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive report of long-term outcomes. Gastroenterology 2010;138:52-64 
  11. Sangro B, Carpanese L, Cianni R, Golfieri R, Gasparini D, Ezziddin S, et al. Survival after yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma across Barcelona clinic liver cancer stages: a European evaluation. Hepatology 2011;54:868-878 
  12. Shropshire EL, Chaudhry M, Miller CM, Allen BC, Bozdogan E, Cardona DM, et al. LI-RADS treatment response algorithm: performance and diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2019;292:226-234 
  13. Chaudhry M, McGinty KA, Mervak B, Lerebours R, Li C, Shropshire E, et al. The LI-RADS version 2018 MRI treatment response algorithm: evaluation of ablated hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 2020;294:320-326 
  14. Seo N, Kim MS, Park MS, Choi JY, Do RKG, Han K, et al. Evaluation of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma in the explanted liver with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2017. Eur Radiol 2020;30:261-271 
  15. Cools KS, Moon AM, Burke LMB, McGinty KA, Strassle PD, Gerber DA. Validation of the liver imaging reporting and data system treatment response criteria after thermal ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2020;26:203-214 
  16. Kim SW, Joo I, Kim HC, Ahn SJ, Kang HJ, Jeon SK, et al. LI-RADS treatment response categorization on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI: diagnostic performance compared to mRECIST and added value of ancillary features. Eur Radiol 2020;30:2861-2870 
  17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174 
  18. Kloeckner R, Otto G, Biesterfeld S, Oberholzer K, Dueber C, Pitton MB. MDCT versus MRI assessment of tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2010;33:532-540 
  19. Amorim J, Franca M, Perez-Girbes A, Torregrosa A, Marti-Bonmati L. Critical review of HCC imaging in the multidisciplinary setting: treatment allocation and evaluation of response. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:3119-3128 
  20. Semaan S, Makkar J, Lewis S, Chatterji M, Kim E, Taouli B. Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma response after 90Y radioembolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;209:W263-W276 
  21. Min JH, Kang TW, Kim YY, Cha DI, Kim YK, Kim SH, et al. Vanishing washout of hepatocellular carcinoma according to the presence of hepatic steatosis: diagnostic performance of CT and MRI. Eur Radiol 2020 Nov [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07438-9 
  22. Kim DH, Choi SH, Byun JH, Kang JH, Lim YS, Lee SJ, et al. Arterial subtraction images of gadoxetate-enhanced MRI improve diagnosis of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2019;71:534-542