ArticleLa Radiologia medica2021
LI-RADS to categorize liver nodules in patients at risk of HCC: tool or a gadget in daily practice?
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 category 5 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Risk Stratification and Distribution of Hepatocellular Carcinomas in CEUS and CT/MRI LI-RADS: A Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Radiomic Analysis and Liquid Biopsy in Preoperative CT of NSCLC: An Explorative Experience.Thoracic cancer · 2025Article
- Radiological diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma does not preclude biopsy before treatment.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2024Article
- Update on the Applications of Radiomics in Diagnosis, Staging, and Recurrence of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- LI-RADS: Looking Back, Looking Forward.Radiology · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
- Preliminary Experience of Liquid Biopsy in Lung Cancer Compared to Conventional Assessment: Light and Shadows.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Structured Reporting in Radiological Settings: Pitfalls and Perspectives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Multimodality Imaging Assessment of Desmoid Tumors: The Great Mime in the Era of Multidisciplinary Teams.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Imaging Severity COVID-19 Assessment in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Patients: Comparison of the Different Variants in a High Volume Italian Reference Center.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Diffusion weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging in abdominal oncological setting: why and when.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Review
- Imaging Features of Post Main Hepatectomy Complications: The Radiologist Challenging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Complications Risk Assessment and Imaging Findings of Thermal Ablation Treatment in Liver Cancers: What the Radiologist Should Expect.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- What proportion of LI-RADS 5 observations reported in clinical practice do not meet LI-RADS 5 criteria?European radiology · 2022Article
- Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma: What the Multidisciplinary Team Should Know.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the effectiveness of liver reporting and data system (LI-RADS) to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to retrospectively evaluate its impact on the adopted therapeutic strategy. MATERIALS AND
methodsPreoperative imaging of 40 of 350 patients (median age 66, 31 M/9 F) submitted to liver resection for suspected HCC, between January 2008 and August 2019, has been retrospectively analyzed by two radiologists with different expertise, according to CT/MRI LI-RADS
resultsThe perfect agreement between the readers was about 62.5% (25/40) (Cohen k: 0.41), better for LR-5 category (16/25) and higher in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) investigations (68%; 13/19), which has been demonstrated the modality of choice for diagnosis of high probable and certain HCC, with arterial phase hyperenhancement as the most sensitive and accurate major feature. Compared to final histology, LR4 and LR5 scores assigned by senior radiologist reached sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, PNV) and diagnostic accuracy of 90,9%, 29,0%, 93,8%, 62,5% and 87,5%, respectively, slightly higher than junior's ones. Misdiagnosis of HCC was done by both radiologists in the same two patients: 1 primary hepatic lymphoma (PHL) and 1 regenerative liver nodule (RLN). If LI-RADS would have been applied at the time of pre-surgical imaging, treatment planning would be modified in 10% of patients (4/40); the patient scheduled as LR-3 and finally resulted a focal nodular hyperplasia would have avoided liver resection.
conclusionsApplication of LI-RADS, especially on MRI, may provide a more accurate evaluation of suspected HCC. PHL and RLN are the Achille's heels according to our experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32458272What 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.