Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29675659›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2018

Interobserver and intermodality agreement of standardized algorithms for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients: CEUS-LI-RADS versus MRI-LI-RADS.

Barbara Schellhaas, Matthias Hammon, Deike Strobel, Lukas Pfeifer, Christian Kielisch, Ruediger S Goertz, Alexander Cavallaro, Rolf Janka, Markus F Neurath, Michael Uder and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barbara SchellhaasDepartment of Internal Medicine 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Matthias HammonDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Deike StrobelDepartment of Internal Medicine 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Lukas PfeiferDepartment of Internal Medicine 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Christian KielischDepartment of Internal Medicine 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Ruediger S GoertzDepartment of Internal Medicine 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Alexander CavallaroDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Rolf JankaDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Markus F NeurathDepartment of Internal Medicine 1, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Michael UderDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany.
Hannes SeussDepartment of Radiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Bayern, Germany. hannes.seuss@uk-erlangen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9429-6153
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe compared the interobserver agreement for the recently introduced contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-based algorithm CEUS-LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System) versus the well-established magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-LI-RADS for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients.

methodsFocal liver lesions in 50 high-risk patients (mean age 66.2 ± 11.8 years; 39 male) were assessed retrospectively with CEUS and MRI. Two independent observers reviewed CEUS and MRI examinations, separately, classifying observations according to CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016 and MRI-LI-RADSv.2014. Interobserver agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa.

resultsForty-three lesions were HCCs; two were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas; five were benign lesions. Arterial phase hyperenhancement was perceived less frequently with CEUS than with MRI (37/50 / 38/50 lesions = 74%/78% [CEUS; observer 1/observer 2] versus 46/50 / 44/50 lesions = 92%/88% [MRI; observer 1/observer 2]). Washout appearance was observed in 34/50 / 20/50 lesions = 68%/40% with CEUS and 31/50 / 31/50 lesions = 62%/62%) with MRI. Interobserver agreement was moderate for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.511/0.565 [CEUS/MRI]) and "washout" (ĸ = 0.490/0.582 [CEUS/MRI]), fair for CEUS-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.309) and substantial for MRI-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.609). Intermodality agreement was fair for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.329), slight to fair for "washout" (ĸ = 0.202) and LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.218)

conclusionInterobserver agreement is substantial for MRI-LI-RADS and only fair for CEUS-LI-RADS. This is mostly because interobserver agreement in the perception of washout appearance is better in MRI than in CEUS. Further refinement of the LI-RADS algorithms and increasing education and practice may be necessary to improve the concordance between CEUS and MRI for the final LI-RADS categorization. KEY POINTS: • CEUS-LI-RADS and MRI-LIRADS enable standardized non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. • With CEUS, interobserver agreement is better for arterial hyperenhancement than for "washout". • Interobserver agreement for major features is moderate for both CEUS and MRI. • Interobserver agreement for LI-RADS category is substantial for MRI, and fair for CEUS. • Interobserver-agreement for CEUS-LI-RADS will presumably improve with ongoing use of the algorithm.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, HepatocellularCholangiocarcinomaContrast MediaFemaleHumansLiver CirrhosisLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaCarcinoma, hepatocellularDiagnostic techniques and proceduresLiver cirrhosisMagnetic resonance imagingUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID29675659
OpenAlexW2801649569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.