Imaging for Early Detection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Updates and Challenges in the Implementation of Screening and Surveillance Programs.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is one of the most aggressive cancers. It has a poor 5-year survival rate of 12%, partly because most cases are diagnosed at advanced stages, precluding curative surgical resection. Early-stage PDA has significantly better prognoses due to increased potential for curative interventions, making early detection of PDA critically important to improved patient outcomes. We examine current and evolving early detection concepts, screening strategies, diagnostic yields among high-risk individuals, controversies, and limitations of standard-of-care imaging.

Percentage of Pancreatic Cysts on MRI With a Pancreatic Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are frequent on MRI and are thought to be associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) necessitating long-term surveillance based on older studies suffering from selection bias. PURPOSE: To establish the percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI with a present or future PDAC. STUDY TYPE: Systematic review, meta-analysis. POPULATION: Adults with PCLs on MRI and a present or future diagnosis of PDAC were eligible. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were searched to April 2022 (PROSPERO:CRD42022320502). Studies limited to PCLs not requiring surveillance, <100 patients, or those with a history/genetic risk of PDAC were excluded. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: ≥1.5 T with ≥1 T2-weighted sequence. ASSESSMENT: Two investigators extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by a third. QUADAS-2 assessed bias. PDAC was diagnosed using a composite reference standard. STATISTICAL TESTS: A meta-analysis of proportions was performed at the patient-level with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Eight studies with 1289 patients contributed to the percentage of patients with a present diagnosis of PDAC, and 10 studies with 3422 patients to the percentage with a future diagnosis. Of patients with PCLs on MRI, 14.8% (95% CI 2.4-34.9) had a PDAC at initial MRI, which decreased to 6.0% (2.2-11.3) for studies at low risk of bias. For patients without PDAC on initial MRI, 2.0% (1.1-3.2) developed PDAC during surveillance, similar for low risk of bias studies at 1.9% (0.7-3.6), with no clear trend of increased PDAC for longer surveillance durations. For patients without worrisome features or high-risk stigmata, 0.9% (0.1-2.2) developed PDAC during surveillance. Of 10, eight studies had a median surveillance ≥3 years (range 3-157 months). Sources of bias included retrospectively limiting PCLs to those with histopathology and inconsistent surveillance protocols. DATA CONCLUSION: A low percentage of patients with PCLs on MRI develop PDAC while on surveillance. The first MRI revealing a PCL should be scrutinized for PDAC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

A Multicenter Assessment of Interreader Reliability of LI-RADS Version 2018 for MRI and CT.

Background Various limitations have impacted research evaluating reader agreement for Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS). Purpose To assess reader agreement of LI-RADS in an international multicenter multireader setting using scrollable images. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used deidentified clinical multiphase CT and MRI and reports with at least one untreated observation from six institutions and three countries; only qualifying examinations were submitted. Examination dates were October 2017 to August 2018 at the coordinating center. One untreated observation per examination was randomly selected using observation identifiers, and its clinically assigned features were extracted from the report. The corresponding LI-RADS version 2018 category was computed as a rescored clinical read. Each examination was randomly assigned to two of 43 research readers who independently scored the observation. Agreement for an ordinal modified four-category LI-RADS scale (LR-1, definitely benign; LR-2, probably benign; LR-3, intermediate probability of malignancy; LR-4, probably hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]; LR-5, definitely HCC; LR-M, probably malignant but not HCC specific; and LR-TIV, tumor in vein) was computed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Agreement was also computed for dichotomized malignancy (LR-4, LR-5, LR-M, and LR-TIV), LR-5, and LR-M. Agreement was compared between research-versus-research reads and research-versus-clinical reads. Results The study population consisted of 484 patients (mean age, 62 years ± 10 [SD]; 156 women; 93 CT examinations, 391 MRI examinations). ICCs for ordinal LI-RADS, dichotomized malignancy, LR-5, and LR-M were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.73), 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.70), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.66), and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.31, 0.61) respectively. Research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical agreement for modified four-category LI-RADS (ICC, 0.68 vs 0.62, respectively; P = .03) and for dichotomized malignancy (ICC, 0.63 vs 0.53, respectively; P = .005), but not for LR-5 (P = .14) or LR-M (P = .94). Conclusion There was moderate agreement for LI-RADS version 2018 overall. For some comparisons, research-versus-research reader agreement was higher than research-versus-clinical reader agreement, indicating differences between the clinical and research environments that warrant further study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorials by Johnson and Galgano and Smith in this issue.

Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Imaging Techniques and Diagnostic Features.

The detection of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions has increased over time. It is crucial to separate benign from potentially malignant or malignant lesions to guide management and reduce morbidity and mortality. The key imaging features used to fully characterize cystic lesions are optimally assessed by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, with pancreas protocol computed tomography offering a complementary role. While some imaging features have high specificity for a particular diagnosis, overlapping imaging features between diagnoses may require further investigation with follow-up diagnostic imaging or tissue sampling.

Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Next Generation of Radiologic Assessment.

Pancreatic cystic lesions are frequently identified on cross-sectional imaging. As many of these are presumed branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, these lesions generate much anxiety for the patients and clinicians, often necessitating long-term follow-up imaging and even unnecessary surgical resections. However, the incidence of pancreatic cancer is overall low for patients with incidental pancreatic cystic lesions. Radiomics and deep learning are advanced tools of imaging analysis that have attracted much attention in addressing this unmet need, however, current publications on this topic show limited success and large-scale research is needed.

Comparing Survival Outcomes of Patients With LI-RADS-M Hepatocellular Carcinomas and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: There is a sparsity of data evaluating outcomes of patients with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) (LR)-M lesions. PURPOSE: To compare overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) between hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) meeting LR-M criteria and to evaluate factors associated with prognosis. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: Patients at risk for HCC with at least one LR-M lesion with histologic diagnosis, from 8 academic centers, yielding 120 patients with 120 LR-M lesions (84 men [mean age 62 years] and 36 women [mean age 66 years]). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 1.5 and 3.0 T/3D T1 -weighted gradient echo, T2 -weighted fast spin-echo. ASSESSMENT: The imaging categorization of each lesion as LR-M was made clinically by a single radiologist at each site and patient outcome measures were collected. STATISTICAL TESTS: OS, PFS, and potential independent predictors were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazard model. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with 120 LR-M lesions were included; on histology 65 were HCC and 55 were iCCA. There was similar median OS for patients with LR-M HCC compared to patients with iCCA (738 days vs. 769 days, P = 0.576). There were no significant differences between patients with HCC and iCCA in terms of sex (47:18 vs. 37:18, P = 0.549), age (63.0 ± 8.4 vs. 63.4 ± 7.8, P = 0.847), etiology of liver disease (P = 0.202), presence of cirrhosis (100% vs. 100%, P = 1.000), tumor size (4.73 ± 3.28 vs. 4.75 ± 2.58, P = 0.980), method of lesion histologic diagnosis (P = 0.646), and proportion of patients who underwent locoregional therapy (60.0% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.100) or surgery (134.8 ± 165.5 vs. 142.5 ± 205.6, P = 0.913). Using multivariable analysis, nonsurgical compared to surgical management (HR, 4.58), larger tumor size (HR, 1.19), and higher MELD score (HR, 1.12) were independently associated with worse OS. DATA CONCLUSION: There was similar OS in patients with LR-M HCC and LR-M iCCA, suggesting that LR-M imaging features may more closely reflect patient outcomes than histology. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 5.

Postoperative surveillance of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) recurrence: practice pattern on standardized imaging and reporting from the society of abdominal radiology disease focus panel on PDAC.

PURPOSE: Surgical resection is the only potential curative treatment for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but unfortunately most patients recur within 5 years of surgery. This article aims to assess the practice patterns across major academic institutions and develop consensus recommendations for postoperative imaging and interpretation in patients with PDAC. METHODS: The consensus recommendations for postoperative imaging surveillance following PDAC resection were developed using the Delphi method. Members of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) PDAC Disease Focused Panel (DFP) underwent three rounds of surveys followed by live webinar group discussions to develop consensus recommendations. RESULTS: Significant variations currently exist in the postoperative surveillance of PDAC, even among academic institutions. Differentiating common postoperative inflammatory and fibrotic changes from tumor recurrence remains a diagnostic challenge, and there is no reliable size threshold or growth rate of imaging findings that can provide differentiation. A new liver lesion or peritoneal nodule should be considered suspicious for tumor recurrence, and the imaging features should be interpreted in the appropriate clinical context (e.g., CA 19-9, clinical presentation, pathologic staging). CONCLUSION: Postoperative imaging following PDAC resection is challenging to interpret due to the presence of confounding postoperative inflammatory changes. A standardized reporting template for locoregional findings and report impression may improve communication of relaying risk of recurrence with referring providers, which merits validation in future studies.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network hepatocellular carcinoma classification: Alignment with Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System, current gaps, and future direction.

The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) updated its allocation policy for liver transplantation to align with the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging algorithm had achieved congruency with the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) HCC Practice Guidance in 2018, and therefore, alignment of OPTN, LI-RADS, and AASLD unifies HCC diagnostic approaches. The two changes to the OPTN HCC classification are adoption of LI-RADS terminology or lexicon for HCC major imaging features as well as the modification of OPTN Class-5A through the adoption of LI-RADS-5 criteria. However, despite this significant milestone, the OPTN allocation policy may benefit from further refinements such as adoption of treatment response assessment criteria after locoregional therapy and categorization criteria for lesions with atypical imaging appearances that are not specific for HCC. In this review, we detail the changes to the OPTN HCC classification to achieve alignment with LI-RADS, discuss current limitations of the OPTN classification, and explore future directions.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Management of Liver Cancer: 2022 Update.

The treatment and management of hepatic malignancies can be complex because it encompasses a variety of primary and metastatic malignancies and an assortment of local and systemic treatment options. When to use each of these treatments is critical to ensure the most appropriate care for patients. Interventional radiologists have a key role to play in the delivery of a variety of liver directed treatments including percutaneous ablation, transarterial embolization with bland embolic particles alone, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with injection of a chemotherapeutic emulsion, and transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Based on 9 clinical variants, the appropriateness of each treatment is described in this document. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

Imaging Features of Premalignant Biliary Lesions and Predisposing Conditions with Pathologic Correlation.

Biliary malignancies include those arising from the intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts as well as the gallbladder and hepatopancreatic ampulla of Vater. The majority of intrahepatic and extrahepatic malignancies are cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs). They arise owing to a complex interplay between the patient-specific genetic background and multiple risk factors and may occur in the liver (intrahepatic CCA), hilum (perihilar CCA), or extrahepatic bile ducts (distal CCA). Biliary-type adenocarcinoma constitutes the most common histologic type of ampullary and gallbladder malignancies. Its prognosis is poor and surgical resection is considered curative, so early detection is key, with multimodality imaging playing a central role in making the diagnosis. There are several risk factors for biliary malignancy as well as predisposing conditions that increase the risk; this review highlights the pertinent imaging features of these entities with histopathologic correlation. The predisposing factors are broken down into three major categories: (a) congenital malformations such as choledochal cyst and pancreaticobiliary maljunction; (b) infectious or inflammatory conditions such as parasitic infections, hepatolithiasis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and porcelain gallbladder; and (c) preinvasive epithelial neoplasms such as biliary intraepithelial neoplasm, intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct, intra-ampullary papillary tubular neoplasm, and intracholecystic papillary neoplasm of the gallbladder. Recognizing the baseline features of these premalignant biliary entities and changes in their appearance over time that indicate the advent of malignancy in high-risk patients can lead to early diagnosis and potentially curative management. An invited commentary by Volpacchio is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2022.

Standardization of MRI Screening and Reporting in Individuals With Elevated Risk of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Consensus Statement of the PRECEDE Consortium.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most aggressive malignancies, with a dismal survival rate. Screening the general population for early detection of PDAC is not recommended, but because early detection improves survival, high-risk individuals, defined as those meeting criteria based on a family history of PDAC and/or the presence of known pathogenic germline variant genes with PDAC risk, are recommended to undergo screening with MRI and/or endoscopic ultrasound at regular intervals. The Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium was formed in 2018 and is composed of gastroenterologists, geneticists, pancreatic surgeons, radiologists, statisticians, and researchers from 40 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia. The overarching goal of the PRECEDE Consortium is to facilitate earlier diagnosis of PDAC for high-risk individuals to increase survival of the disease. A standardized MRI protocol and reporting template are needed to enhance the quality of screening examinations, improve consistency of clinical management, and facilitate multiinstitutional research. We present a consensus statement to standardize MRI screening and reporting for individuals with elevated risk of pancreatic cancer.

Liver Transplant for Nonhepatocellular Malignancies: A Review for Radiologists.

Although liver transplant is traditionally only performed for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the last decade has seen a resurgence in its use for non-HCC malignancies, likely due to improvements in neoadjuvant treatment regimens and the establishment of well-defined eligibility criteria. Given promising survival results, patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, neuroendocrine liver metastases, and hepatic hemangioendothelioma are eligible to receive Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points for tumors that meet well-defined criteria. Patients with additional tumors such as colorectal cancer liver metastases, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma may undergo transplant at specialized centers with well-defined protocols, although these patients are not yet eligible for MELD exception. Transplant eligibility criteria commonly incorporate imaging findings; however, because of the relatively novel and evolving nature of liver transplant for non-HCC malignancies, radiologists may be unaware of relevant criteria or the implications of their imaging interpretations. Knowledge of the allocation process, previous studies, and liver transplant selection criteria facilitates radiologists' active participation in multidisciplinary discussion, leading to better and more equitable care for transplant candidates with non-HCC malignancy. This review provides an overview of transplant allocation and selection criteria in patients with non-HCC malignancy, with an emphasis on imaging features and the role of the radiologist.

MR Angiography Series: Abdominal and Pelvic MR Angiography.

This review guides readers through the selection and setup of standardized MR angiography (MRA) protocols for the abdomen and pelvis for common clinical applications. Topics covered include renovascular MRA in potential kidney donors and in patients with hypertension; hepatic and mesenteric MRA in potential liver donors, patients with portal hypertension, and patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia; pelvic MRA for pretreatment planning before uterine fibroid embolization and in patients with pelvic congestion syndrome; and abdominal wall MRA for planning of breast reconstructive surgery. This module is the fifth in a series created on behalf of the Society for Magnetic Resonance Angiography (SMRA), a group of researchers and clinicians who are passionate about the benefits of MRA but understand its challenges. The full digital presentation is available online. ©RSNA, 2022.

MR Angiography Series: Neurovascular MR Angiography.

Neurovascular MR angiography (MRA) is an evolving imaging technique and is crucial for the workup of numerous neurologic disorders. While CT angiography (CTA) provides a more rapid imaging assessment, in select patients it can impart a small risk of contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity or radiation-associated cancers. In addition, MRA offers some advantages over CTA for neurovascular evaluation, including higher temporal resolution and the capability for vessel wall imaging. This module is the third in a series created on behalf of the Society for Magnetic Resonance Angiography (SMRA), a group of researchers and clinicians who are passionate about the benefits of MRA but understand its challenges. The full digital presentation is available online. Work of the U.S. Government published under an exclusive license with the RSNA.

Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease Focused Panel Survey on Clinical Utilization of Incidental Pancreatic Cyst Management Recommendations and Template Reporting.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current practice patterns with respect to protocols used for incidental pancreatic cyst follow-up, management guidelines, and template reporting. METHODS: The Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease Focused Panel on intraductal pancreatic neoplasms distributed an anonymous 14-question survey to its members in June 2018 that focused on current utilization of incidental pancreatic cyst guidelines, protocols, and template reporting. RESULTS: Among the 1,390 email invitations, 323 responded, and 94.7% (306 of 323) completed all questions. Respondents were mainly radiologists (93.8%, 303 of 323) from academic institutions (74.7%, 227 of 304) in North America (93.7%, 286 of 305). Of respondents, 42.5% (136 of 320) preferred 2017 ACR recommendations, 17.8% (57 of 320) homegrown systems, 15.0% (48 of 320) Fukuoka guidelines, and 7.8% (25 of 320) American Gastroenterological Association guidelines. The majority (68.7%, 222 of 323) agreed or strongly agreed that developing a single international consensus recommendation for management was important, and most radiologists preferred to include them in reports (231 of 322, 71.7%); yet only half included recommendations in >75% of reports (161 of 321). MR cholangiopancreatography was the modality of choice for follow-up of <2.5 cm cysts. Intravenous contrast was routinely used by 69.7% (212 of 304). Standardized reporting templates were rarely used in practice (12.8% 39 of 306). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 7 of 10 radiologists desire a unified international consensus recommendation for management of incidental cystic pancreatic lesions; ACR 2017 recommendations are most commonly used, followed by homegrown systems and Fukuoka guidelines. The majority of radiologists routinely use MR cholangiopancreatography with intravenous contrast for follow-up of incidental cystic lesions, but template reporting is rarely used.

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas: recommendations for Standardized Imaging and Reporting from the Society of Abdominal Radiology IPMN disease focused panel.

There have been many publications detailing imaging features of malignant transformation of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN), management and recommendations for imaging follow-up of diagnosed or presumed IPMN. However, there is no consensus on several practical aspects of imaging IPMN that could serve as a clinical guide for radiologists and enable future data mining for research. These aspects include how to measure IPMN, define reporting terminology, standardize reporting and unify guidelines for surveillance. The Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) created multiple Disease-Focused Panels (DFP) comprised multidisciplinary panel members who focus on a particular disease, with the goal to develop ways for radiologists to improve patient care, education, and research. DFP members met to identify the current controversies and limitations of imaging pancreatic IPMN. This paper aims to provide a practical review of the key imaging characteristics of IPMN for trainees and practicing radiologists, to guide uniformity of performance and interpretation of surveillance imaging studies, and to improve communication with clinicians by providing a lexicon and reporting template based on the experience of the SAR-DFP panel members.

Diagnostic Performance of LI-RADS Version 2018, LI-RADS Version 2017, and OPTN Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was updated in 2018 (LI-RADS version 2018 [LI-RADSv2018]) to facilitate integration into the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2018 clinical practice guidelines and involved changes in LR-5 categorization and threshold growth definitions. There are also differences between the criteria for LI-RADSv2018 LR-5 category and the criteria for Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) class 5. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performances of LI-RADSv2018, LI-RADS version 2017 (LI-RADSv2017), and OPTN criteria for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective study, 122 patients with 159 observations were included who met LI-RADS criteria for at risk for HCC and had at least one hepatic observation on MRI performed between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2018 and who had histopathology results (n = 104) or follow-up imaging (n = 55) as reference standards. Three abdominal radiologists assigned categories independently and in consensus using LI-RADSv2017, LI-RADSv2018, and OPTN criteria. Diagnostic performance was compared among the guidelines with a generalized estimating equation. RESULTS. Fourteen of 159 (8.8%) observations were assigned a different category according to LI-RADSv2018 compared with LI-RADSv2017. Eight of 31 (25.8%) LR-4 observations using v2017 were recategorized as LR-5 using v2018, and all eight were HCC. Six of 31 (19.4%) LR-4 observations based on v2017 were recategorized as LR-3 using v2018, and all six were non-HCCs. Seven of 114 (6.1%) observations not meeting OPTN class 5 criteria were LR-5 using v2018, and all seven were HCC. Sensitivity for HCC of LR-5 and LR-TIV+5 (i.e., LR-TIV [tumor in vein] definitely due to HCC) categories based on v2018 was significantly higher than that based on v2017 (63.9% vs 55.2%, respectively; p = 0.008) without a difference in specificity (97.3% vs 97.3%; p = 1.00). Sensitivity of LR-5 and LR-TIV+5 in LI-RADSv2018 was significantly higher than the sensitivity of class 5 in OPTN criteria (63.9% vs 53.6%; p = 0.004) without a difference in specificity (97.3% vs 97.3%; p = 1.00). Reader agreement was moderate for overall LIRADSv2017 and LI-RADSv2018 categories (κ = 0.504 and 0.561, respectively); substantial for LR-5 and LR-TIV+5 categories as diagnostic of HCC versus other categories for both v2017 and v2018 (κ = 0.758 and 0.802, respectively); and substantial for OPTN class 5 criteria (κ = 0.756). CONCLUSION. The diagnostic performance of LI-RADSv2018 is higher, with higher sensitivity and similar specificity, than the diagnostic performance of LI-RADSv2017 and OPTN criteria for HCC.

Clinicians and surgeon survey regarding current and future versions of CT/MRI LI-RADS.

PURPOSE: To determine preferences of clinicians and surgeons regarding radiology reporting of liver observations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Members of the American College of Radiology Liver Imaging and Data Reporting System (LI-RADS) Outreach & Education Group (30 members) as well as Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on HCC diagnosis (27 members) created and distributed an 18-question survey to clinicians and surgeons, with focus on preferences regarding radiology reporting of liver observations in patients. The survey questions were directed to physician demographics, current use of LI-RADS by their local radiologists, their opinions about current LI-RADS and potential improvements. RESULTS: A total of 152 physicians responded, 66.4% (101/152) from North America, including 42 surgeons, 81 physicians and 29 interventional radiologists. Participants were predominantly from academic centers 83% (126/152), while 13.8% (21/152) worked in private/community centers and 3.2% (5/152) worked in a hybrid practice. Almost 90% (136/152) of participants preferred the use of LI-RADS (compared to nothing or other standardized reporting systems; OPTN and AASLD) to communicate liver-related observations. However, only 28.5% (43/152) of participants input was sought at the time of implementing LI-RADS in their institutions. Fifty-eight percent (88/152) of all participants found standardized LI-RADS management recommendations in radiology reports to be clinically helpful. However, a subgroup analysis of surgeons in academic centers showed that 61.8% (21/34) prefer not to receive standardized LI-RADS recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants preferred the use LI-RADS in reporting CT and MRI examination. When considering inclusion of management recommendations, radiologists should consult with their referring physicians, as preference may differ.