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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Stratification and Distribution of Hepatocellular Carcinomas in CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Inter-reader reliability of contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: a meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Pooled it
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of portal vein thrombosis vs tumor-in-vein in HCC patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2020Pooled it
- CEUS-based quantitative analysis of washout time in focal liver lesions affects hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Inter-Reader Agreement for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Major Features and Final Categorization: A Subanalysis From a Prospective Multicenter Study.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Article
- Weakly Supervised Deep Learning Can Analyze Focal Liver Lesions in Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound.Digestion · 2025Article
- Training on contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS classification for resident radiologists: a retrospective comparison of performance after training.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- The comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI LI-RADS for nodules ≤2 cm in patients at high risk for HCC: a prospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Differences between CEUS LI-RADS and CECT LI-RADS in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions in patients at risk for HCC.BMC medical imaging · 2023Article
- Compared with CT/MRI LI-RADS, whether CEUS LI-RADS is worth popularizing in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma?-a direct head-to-head meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Development of a deep-learning model for classification of LI-RADS major features by using subtraction images of MRI: a preliminary study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT.Radiology · 2023Article
- Identification of the origin of tumor in vein: comparison between CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and v2016 for patients at high risk.BMC medical imaging · 2022Article
- Article
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Deep learning radiomics for focal liver lesions diagnosis on long-range contrast-enhanced ultrasound and clinical factors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- Interrater reliability and agreement of the liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018 for the evaluation of hepatic lesions.Polish journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader reliability of the MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (version 2018) risk stratification and management system.SA journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography: comparison with CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in patients with suspected hepatocellular carcinoma.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2021Article
- Real-life assessment of standardized contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and CEUS algorithms (CEUS LI-RADS®/ESCULAP) in hepatic nodules in cirrhotic patients-a prospective multicenter study.European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.