Is There a Difference Between LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 Progression Assessment Using CT Versus MR? A Retrospective, Single-Center, Longitudinal Study of Patients Who Underwent 5082 Radiologic Examinations for Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Over a 43-Month Period.

OBJECTIVE: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) has been widely applied to CT and MR liver observations in patients at high-risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated the impact of CT vs MR in upgrading LI-RADS 3 to LI-RADS 5 observations using a large cohort of high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal study of CT and MR radiographic reports (June 2013 - February 2017) with an assigned LI-RADS category. A final population of 757 individual scans and 212 high-risk patients had at least one LI-RADS 3 observation. Differences in observation time to progression between modalities were determined using uni- and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Of the 212 patients with a LI-RADS 3 observation, 52 (25%) had progression to LI-RADS 5. Tp ranged from 64 - 818 days (median: 196 days). One hundred and three patients (49%) had MR and 109 patients (51%) had CT as their index study. Twenty-four patients with an MR index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during the follow-up interval, with progression rates of 22% (CI:13%-30%) at 1 year and 29% (CI:17%-40%) at 2 years. Twenty-eight patients with a CT index exam progressed to LI-RADS 5 during follow-up, with progression rates of 26% (CI:16%-35%) at 1 year and 31% (CI:19%-41%) at 2 years. Progression rates were not significantly different between patients whose LI-RADS 3 observation was initially diagnosed on MR vs CT (HR: 0.81, P = 0.44). DISCUSSION: MR and CT modalities are comparable for demonstrating progression from LI-RADS 3 to 5 for high risk patients.

Comparative Effectiveness of Transarterial Embolization and Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of embolization with that of sorafenib in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma as practiced in real-world settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based observational study was conducted with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Patients 65 years old and older with a diagnosis of primary liver cancer between 2007 and 2011 who underwent embolization or sorafenib treatment were identified. Patients were excluded if they had insufficient claims records, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or other primary cancer or had undergone liver transplant or combination therapy. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting models were used to control for selection bias. RESULTS: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 1017 patients. Models showed good balance between treatment groups. Compared with those who underwent embolization, patients treated with sorafenib had significantly higher hazard of earlier death from time of treatment (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.37; p < 0.0001) and from time of cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.39; p < 0.0001). The survival advantage after embolization was seen in both intermediate- and advanced-stage disease. CONCLUSION: This comparative effectiveness study of Medicare patients with hepatocellular carcinoma showed significantly longer overall survival after treatment with embolization than with sorafenib. Because these findings conflict with expert opinion-based guidelines for treatment of advanced-stage disease, prospective randomized comparative trials in this subpopulation would be justified.