Effectiveness of US Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chronic Hepatitis B: US LI-RADS Visualization Score.

ABSTRACT

Background US is a standard surveillance tool of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but its effectiveness varies depending on the degree of fibrosis or steatosis and the etiologies of liver disease. Purpose To evaluate the detection power of US and the occurrence of HCC according to the US Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) visualization score in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Materials and Methods Consecutive patients with CHB undergoing regular US surveillance of HCC at a tertiary referral hospital were retrospectively included in this study. During the follow-up, all patients underwent regular HCC surveillance mainly with US and, in some cases, alternative CT or MRI. Outcomes of interest included cumulative incidence of HCC and false-negative rate of US in the optimal (LI-RADS visualization A) versus suboptimal groups (visualization B or C). Cox regression analysis was conducted to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) of HCC occurrence. Results A total of 2002 patients (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-60 years]; 1192 men) were included 972 and 1030 in the optimal and suboptimal groups, respectively. Causes of suboptimal visualization included parenchymal heterogeneity from advanced cirrhosis (n = 489), limited penetration from fatty liver (n = 200), and limited window from overlying organ shadow (n = 341). During a median follow-up of 75 months (IQR, 69-77 months), 163 patients developed HCC. Compared with the optimal group, the suboptimal group had a higher risk of HCC (2.38% per year vs 0.48% per year hazard ratio, 4.93; 95% CI 3.28, 7.41; P < .001) and higher odds of a false-negative rate of US (43.9% vs 16.7% odds ratio, 3.90; 95% CI 1.02, 15.00; P = .04). Conclusion Among patients with CHB, those with suboptimal US LI-RADS visualization of B or C had a higher risk of HCC and higher odds of false-negative rates of US for detecting HCC than those with optimal visualization of A. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Barr and Scoutt in this issue.