Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Contrast-Enhanced US Nonradiation Treatment Response Assessment Version 2024.

The American College of Radiology Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) standardizes the imaging technique, reporting lexicon, disease categorization, and management for patients with or at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LI-RADS encompasses HCC surveillance with US; HCC diagnosis with CT, MRI, or contrast-enhanced US (CEUS); and treatment response assessment (TRA) with CT or MRI. LI-RADS was recently expanded to include CEUS TRA after nonradiation locoregional therapy or surgical resection. This report provides an overview of LI-RADS CEUS Nonradiation TRA v2024, including a lexicon of imaging findings, techniques, and imaging criteria for posttreatment tumor viability assessment. LI-RADS CEUS Nonradiation TRA v2024 takes into consideration differences in the CEUS appearance of viable tumor and posttreatment changes within and in close proximity to a treated lesion. Due to the high sensitivity of CEUS to vascular flow, posttreatment reactive changes commonly manifest as areas of abnormal perilesional enhancement without washout, especially in the first 3 months after treatment. To improve the accuracy of CEUS for nonradiation TRA, different diagnostic criteria are used to evaluate tumor viability within and outside of the treated lesion margin. Broader criteria for intralesional enhancement increase sensitivity for tumor viability detection. Stricter criteria for perilesional enhancement limit miscategorization of posttreatment reactive changes as viable tumor. Finally, the TRA algorithm reconciles intralesional and perilesional tumor viability assessment and assigns a single LI-RADS treatment response (LR-TR) category: LR-TR nonviable, LR-TR equivocal, or LR-TR viable.

Efficacy of a short course of lung ultrasound for primary care physicians in the assessment of COVID-19-positive patients.

INTRODUCTION: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has become the first diagnostic imaging approach to assess lung involvement in COVID-19. While LUS proved to be safe, reliable, and accurate, not many primary care physicians (PCP) are capable to employ this instrument in the first evaluation of COVID-19 outpatients. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a brief training program in LUS for PCP. METHODS: Italian local authorities promoted a training program in LUS for PCP engaged in COVID-19 outpatients' evaluation. The course took place in a COVID-19 unit and included a hands-on practice on real COVID-19 patients. We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the results of the training program. RESULTS: A total of 32 PCP completed the training. About 100% of participants reported an increase in competence and confidence in the use of LUS after the training. Self-reported confidence in detecting major COVID-19 LUS abnormalities was high (B-lines 8/10, pleural abnormalities 6.5/10). B-lines were accurately identified with a reliability of 81%, with a sensitivity of 96%, and a negative predictive value of 98%. Trainees were some less accurate in detecting pleural abnormalities (reliability 63%) but with a high specificity (99%). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that a short training program, but comprising a hands-on practice, is capable to bring even almost novices to achieve a high overall accuracy and reliability in detecting lung involvement in COVID-19. This may result in a significant improvement of the performances of PCP involved in the first evaluation of COVID-19 cases in primary care facilities.

Management of adverse events with tailored sorafenib dosing prolongs survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib is associated with multiple adverse events (AEs), potentially causing its permanent interruption. It is unknown how physicians' experience has impacted on the management of these AEs and consequently on clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess whether AE management changed over time and if these modifications impacted on treatment duration and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We analysed the prospectively collected data of 338 consecutive patients who started sorafenib between January 2008 and December 2017 in 3 tertiary care centres in Italy. Patients were divided according to the starting date: Group A (2008-2012; n = 154), and Group B (2013-2017, n = 184). Baseline and follow-up data were compared. In the OS analysis, patients who received second-line treatments were censored when starting the new therapy. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, AEs, and radiological response were consistent across groups. Patients in Group B received a lower median daily dose (425 vs. 568 mg/day, p <0.001) due to more frequent dose modifications. However, treatment duration was longer (5.8 vs. 4.1 months, p = 0.021) with a trend toward a higher cumulative dose in Group B. Notably, the OS was also higher (12.0 vs. 11.0 months, p = 0.003) with a sharp increase in the 2-year survival rate (28.1 vs. 18.4%, p = 0.003) in Group B. Multivariate time-dependent Cox regression analysis confirmed later period of treatment (2013-2017) as an independent predictor of survival (HR 0.728; 95%CI 0.581-0.937; p = 0.013). Unconsidered confounders were unlikely to affect these results at the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Experience in the management of sorafenib-related AEs prolongs treatment duration and survival. This factor should be considered in the design of future randomised clinical trials including a sorafenib treatment arm, as an underestimate of sample size may derive. LAY SUMMARY: Sorafenib has been the standard frontline systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma for over a decade. Its tolerability is limited by different adverse events, which might lead to its permanent discontinuation in a sizeable proportion of patients. After a careful analysis of potential confounders, we demonstrated that the physicians' experience in managing adverse events related to sorafenib has improved over time, with longer treatment periods and less permanent discontinuation for toxicities. More importantly, these improvements also translated into longer patient survival. Our results have relevant repercussions in clinical practice and in the design of future clinical trials.

Patient Selection for Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Importance of Benefit/Risk Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Liver cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounting for most primary liver cancers and most commonly arising from a history of advanced chronic liver disease. Among the available therapies, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the most widely utilized and is considered the first-line treatment recommended for patients staged as intermediate HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B). If applied correctly, TACE can produce survival benefits without adversely affecting hepatic functional reserve. SUMMARY: The aim of this nonsystematic review is to evaluate the evidence supporting TACE, with a special interest in intermediate HCC, for which this treatment is recommended in first line. However, intermediate HCC represents a broad and heterogeneous group of patients, not all of whom will benefit from TACE. This review highlights the importance of appropriate patient selection for initial TACE and for retreatment. It also evaluates evidence for the treatment of patients who become refractory to TACE. Some patients may, in fact, benefit from early switch (i.e., after 1 or 2 TACE treatments) to systemic therapies rather than continuing retreatments with TACE in order to preserve liver function, thus allowing sequential first- and second-line drug therapies. KEY MESSAGES: Careful assessment of an individual patient's benefit/risk ratio is recommended before any TACE session is considered to ensure optimal long-term outcomes in intermediate HCC.

Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient in the preoperative assessment of patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUNDS & AIMS: To assess the relationship existing between hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and the occurrence of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) grade B/C after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and persistent worsening of liver function. METHODS: Data from 70 consecutive prospectively enrolled HCC patients undergoing resection were collected and analysed. PHLF grade B/C was defined by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery recommendations. The appearance of unresolved decompensation was also analysed. RESULTS: Postoperative and 90-day mortality were null. The median HVPG value was 9mmHg (range: 4-18) and the median Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 8 (range: 6-14); 34 patients had an HVPG ⩾10mmHg (48.6%). Forty-nine patients had an uneventful (Grade A) postoperative course, including 17 with an HVPG ⩾10mmHg (24.2% of 70 patients). Grade B complications occurred in 20 patients (3 with an HVPG <10mmHg and 17 with an HVPG ⩾10mmHg; p<0.001); only one grade C complication occurred in a patient with an HVPG <10mmHg, subsequently successfully undergoing liver transplantation. Median MELD score returned to preoperative values after a transient postoperative increase, regardless of the HVPG values; after three months, it returned to the preoperative of 8 in patients with an HVPG <10mmHg and of 9 in patients with an HVPG ⩾10mmHg (p=0.077 and 0.076 at paired test, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The hepatic venous pressure gradient can be used before surgery to stratify the risk of PHLF but the proposed cut-off of 10mmHg excludes approximately one-quarter of the patients who would benefit from surgery without short to mid-term postoperative sequelae.

Utility-based criteria for selecting patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation: A multicenter cohort study using the alpha-fetoprotein model as a survival predictor.

The lifetime utility of liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still controversial. The aim of this study was to ascertain when LT is cost-effective for HCC patients, with a view to proposing new transplant selection criteria. The study involved a real cohort of potentially transplantable Italian HCC patients (n = 2419 selected from the Italian Liver Cancer group database) who received nontransplant therapies. A non-LT survival analysis was conducted, the direct costs of therapies were calculated, and a Markov model was used to compute the cost utility of LT over non-LT therapies in Italian and US cost scenarios. Post-LT survival was calculated using the alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) model on the basis of AFP values and radiological size and number of nodules. The primary endpoint was the net health benefit (NHB), defined as LT survival benefit in quality-adjusted life years minus incremental costs (US $)/willingness to pay. The calculated median cost of non-LT therapies per patient was US $53,042 in Italy and US $62,827 in the United States. On Monte Carlo simulation, the NHB of LT was always positive for AFP model values ≤ 3 and always negative for values > 7 in both countries. A multivariate model showed that nontumor variables (patient's age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh [CTP] class, and alternative therapies) had the potential to shift the AFP model threshold of LT cost-ineffectiveness from 3 to 7. LT proved always cost-effective for HCC patients with AFP model values ≤ 3, whereas the cost-ineffectiveness threshold ranged between 3 and 7 using nontumor variables.

Clinical and economical impact of 2010 AASLD guidelines for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), dynamic magnetic resonance (MRI) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are the standard of care to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the clinical and economic benefits of the updated AASLD diagnostic algorithm, including the drop of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), have not been previously evaluated. METHODS: 119 de novo liver nodules detected during ultrasound (US) surveillance in 98 cirrhotics, 7 <1cm, 67 1-2cm, 45 >2cm in size, were sequentially examined by CEUS and CT, using MRI as a rescue approach in patients lacking a typical vascular pattern for HCC by one or both contrast techniques in the 1-2cm nodules and by CT in the >2cm nodules. A FNB was performed when required to meet both 2005 and 2010 AASLD criteria. RESULTS: Eighty-four (70%) nodules were HCC: the radiological diagnosis was done in 38 (88%) of those 1-2cm and in 38 (95%) for those >2cm HCCs according to 2010 AASLD criteria. CT or MRI detected 13 HCC nodules that were missed by unenhanced US. Despite an absolute specificity, CEUS failed to identify any HCC uncharacterized by CT or MRI. By updated AASLD criteria, 6 (17%) FNB procedures were spared in patients with 1-2cm nodules (p=0.025), as compared to 2005 criteria. The 2010 vs. 2005 AASLD per patient cost was similar in 1-2cm nodules, 432 € vs. 451 € (p=0.46), but lower in >2cm nodules, 248 € vs. 321 € (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A sequential study with either CT or MRI enhances the radiological diagnosis of HCC and reduces costs and liver biopsy need.

An explorative data-analysis to support the choice between hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Whether to prefer hepatic resection or radiofrequency ablation as first line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma is a matter of debate. AIMS: To compare outcomes of resection and ablation, in the treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma, through a decision-making analysis. METHODS: Data of 388 cirrhotic patients undergoing resection and of 207 undergoing radiofrequency ablation were reviewed. Two distinct regression models were devised and used to perform sensitivity and probabilistic analyses, to overcome biases of covariate distributions. RESULTS: Actuarial survival curves showed no difference between resection and ablation (P=0.270) despite the fact that ablated patients were older, with worse liver function and smaller, unifocal tumours (P<0.05), suggesting a complex, non-linear relationship between clinical, tumoral variables and treatments. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses suggested that the superiority of resection over ablation decreased at higher Model for-End stage Liver Disease scores, and that ablation provided better results for smaller tumours and higher Model for-End stage Liver Disease scores. In patients with 2-3 tumours up to 3 cm, the two treatments produced opposite comparative results in relation to the Model for-End stage Liver Disease score. CONCLUSIONS: The superiority, or the equivalence, of resection and ablation depends on the non-linear relationship existing between treatment, tumour number, size and degree of liver dysfunction.

Cost-effectiveness of hepatic resection versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for early hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both hepatic resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are considered curative treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but their economic impact still remains not determined. Aim of the present study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness (CE) of these two strategies in early stage HCC (Milan criteria). METHODS: As first step, a meta-analysis of the pertinent literature of the last decade was performed. Seventeen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 3996 patients underwent resection and 4424 underwent RFA for early HCC. Data obtained from the meta-analysis were used to construct a Markov model. Costs were assessed from the health care provider perspective. A Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate outcomes with distribution samples of 1000 patients for each treatment arm. RESULTS: In a 10-year perspective, for very early HCC (single nodule <2 cm) in Child-Pugh class A patients, RFA provided similar life-expectancy and quality-adjusted life-expectancy at a lower cost than resection and was the most cost-effective therapeutic strategy. For single HCCs of 3-5 cm, resection provided better life-expectancy and was more cost-effective than RFA, at a willingness-to-pay above €4200 per quality-adjusted life-year. In the presence of two or three nodules ≤3 cm, life-expectancy and quality-adjusted life-expectancy were very similar between the two treatments, but cost-effectiveness was again in favour of RFA. CONCLUSIONS: For very early HCC and in the presence of two or three nodules ≤3 cm, RFA is more cost-effective than resection; for single larger early stage HCCs, surgical resection remains the best strategy to adopt as a result of better survival rates at an acceptable increase in cost.

Criteria for diagnosing benign portal vein thrombosis in the assessment of patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation.

Malignant portal vein thrombosis is a contraindication for liver transplantation. Patients with cirrhosis and early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may have either malignant or benign (fibrin clot) portal vein thrombosis. The aim of this study was to assess prospectively whether well-defined diagnostic criteria would enable the nature of portal vein thrombosis to be established in patients with HCC under consideration for liver transplantation. Benign portal vein thrombosis was diagnosed by the application of the following criteria: lack of vascularization of the thrombus on contrast-enhanced ultrasound and on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, absence of mass-forming features of the thrombus, absence of disruption of the walls of veins, and, if uncertainty persisted, biopsy of the thrombus for histological examination. Patients who did not fulfill the criteria for benign thrombosis were not placed on the transplantation list. In this study, all patients evaluated at our center during 2001-2007 with a diagnosis of HCC in whom portal vein thrombosis was concurrently or subsequently diagnosed were discussed by a multidisciplinary group to determine their suitability for liver transplantation. The outcomes for 33 patients who met the entry criteria of the study were as follows: in 14 patients who were placed on the transplantation list and underwent liver transplantation, no malignant thrombosis was detected when liver explants were examined histologically; 5 patients who were placed on the transplantation list either remained on the list or died from causes unrelated to HCC; in 9 patients, liver transplantation was contraindicated on account of a strong suspicion, or confirmation, of the presence of malignant portal vein thrombosis; and 5 patients who were initially placed on the transplantation list were subsequently removed from it on account of progression of HCC in the absence of evidence of neoplastic involvement of thrombosis. In conclusion, for a patient with HCC and portal vein thrombosis, appropriate investigations can establish whether the thrombosis is benign; patients with HCC and benign portal vein thrombosis are candidates for liver transplantation.

Cost analysis of recall strategies for non-invasive diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Which is the least expensive recall policy for nodules in the cirrhotic liver remains unclear. AIM: Aim of the study was to analyze the costs of different recall diagnostic strategies of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on cirrhosis on a real series of patients. METHODS: 75 consecutive small liver nodules (10-30 mm) detected at conventional ultrasonography in 60 patients with cirrhosis were submitted to contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography and gadolinium-magnetic resonance imaging with a final diagnosis established according to the latest guidelines which include different strategies for nodules 10-19 mm or > or =20mm. The actual costs required to fully characterise any nodule and staging HCC in every patient, if one or the other imaging modality had been used as the first diagnostic step, were calculated. The theoretical hypothesis that each nodule was present in each patient was also investigated from an economical point of view. RESULTS: The recall strategy starting with contrast-enhanced ultrasound plus computed tomography is the least expensive strategy for patients with at least one nodule 10-19 mm in size, in nearly all combinations (single or double nodules). In patients with single 20-30 mm nodules the least expensive strategy is to start with computed tomography and to use contrast-enhanced ultrasound as a second step technique. CONCLUSIONS: wider use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound has the potential to save healthcare costs after first ultrasound detection of a single small nodule in cirrhosis.

Assessment of donor steatosis in liver transplantation: is it possible without liver biopsy?

BACKGROUND: Macrovesicular steatosis of the liver is associated with early dysfunction or poor function of the graft after transplantation; however, it can be quantified accurately only through a liver biopsy that sometimes may not be available and whose result is anyway known when the recipient has already been selected. It would, therefore, be helpful to be able to predict the degree of steatosis, on the basis of non-invasive readily available variables. METHODS: Data from 374 deceased liver donors from whom a liver biopsy had been taken were analyzed with the receiver operating characteristic area [area under the curve (AUC)] to identify variables that could predict the degree of macrovesicular steatosis classified as: absent to mild (0-30%) and moderate to severe (>30%). RESULTS: Steatosis was associated significantly with donor age, increased body mass index (BMI), presence of type II diabetes, ultrasonographic features, heavy alcohol consumption, transaminases [aspartate-aminotransferase and alanine-aminotransferase (ALT)], gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase, and glucose blood levels. The combination of BMI, elevation of ALT, presence of type II diabetes, history of heavy alcohol consumption, and ultrasonography signs of steatosis could identify steatosis >30% accurately with an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI = 0.81-0.91). CONCLUSION: Fatty infiltration in liver donors can be estimated based on clinical and biochemical parameters.

A new priority policy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation within the model for end-stage liver disease system.

The best prioritization of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation under the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) allocation system is still being debated. We analyzed the impact of a MELD adjustment for HCC, which consisted of the addition of an extra score (based on the HCC stage and waiting time) to the native MELD score. The outcome was analyzed for 301 patients with chronic liver disease listed for liver transplantation between March 1, 2001 and February 28, 2003 [United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)-Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) era, 163 patients, 28.8% with HCC] and between March 1, 2003 and February 28, 2004 (HCC-MELD era, 138 patients, 29.7% with HCC). In the HCC-MELD era, the cumulative dropout risk at 6 months was 17.6% for patients with HCC versus 22.3% for those patients without HCC (P = NS), similar to that in the UNOS-CTP era. The cumulative probability of transplantation at 6 months was 70.3% versus 39.0% (P = 0.005), being higher than that in the UNOS-CTP era for patients with HCC (P = 0.02). At the end of the HCC-MELD era, 12 patients with HCC (29.3%) versus 57 without HCC (58.8%) were still on the list (P = 0.001). Both native and adjusted MELD scores were higher (P < 0.05) and progressed more in patients with HCC who dropped out than in those who underwent transplantation or remained on the list (the initial-final native MELD scores were 17.3-23.1, 15.5-15.6, and 12.8-14.1, respectively). The patients without HCC remaining on the list showed stable MELD scores (initial-final: 15.1-15.4). In conclusion, the present data support the strategy of including the native MELD scores in the allocation system for HCC. This model allows the timely transplantation of patients with HCC without severely affecting the outcome of patients without HCC.

Percutaneous ablation procedures in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma submitted to liver transplantation: Assessment of efficacy at explant analysis and of safety for tumor recurrence.

Aims of this retrospective study were to analyze the efficacy and safety of percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) submitted to orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). We studied 40 patients undergoing OLT in whom 46 HCC nodules had been treated with PEI (13 nodules), RFA (30 nodules), or PEI+RFA (3 nodules). Child-Turcotte-Pugh class was A in 18 cases, B in 18, and C in 4. The mean waiting time for OLT was 9.5 months. The effectiveness of ablation techniques was evaluated by histological examination of the explanted livers. Complete necrosis was found in 19 nodules (41.3%), partial or absent necrosis in 27 nodules (58.7%). Among the 30 nodules treated by RFA, 14 were completely necrotic (46.7%) and 16 demonstrated partial necrosis (53.3%). Considering the 13 neoplasms undergoing PEI, 3 nodules showed complete necrosis (23.1%), 6 partial necrosis (46.1%), and 4 absent necrosis (30.8%). The rate of complete necrosis was 53.1% for nodules smaller than 3 cm and 14.3% for larger lesions (P = 0.033) but increased to 61.9% when considering only the lesions smaller than 3 cm treated by RFA. During the follow up, HCC recurred in 3 patients treated by PEI. No cases of HCC recurrence at the abdominal wall level were recorded. Percutaneous ablation procedures are effective treatments in cirrhotic patients with HCC submitted to OLT and are not associated to an increased risk of tumor recurrence. RFA provides complete necrosis in most nodules smaller than 3 cm, and appears to be the best treatment option in these cases.

Characterization of small nodules in cirrhosis by assessment of vascularity: the problem of hypovascular hepatocellular carcinoma.

In a prospective study, we examined the impact of arterial hypervascularity, as established by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) recommendations, as a criterion for characterizing small (1-3 cm) nodules in cirrhosis. A total of 72 nodules (1-2 cm, n = 41; 2.1-3 cm, n = 31) detected by ultrasonography in 59 patients with cirrhosis were included in the study. When coincidental arterial hypervascularity was detected at contrast perfusional ultrasonography and helical computed tomography, the lesion was considered to be hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to EASL criteria. When one or both techniques showed negative results, ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed. In cases with negative results for malignancy or high-grade dysplasia, biopsy was repeated when an increase in size was detected at the 3-month follow-up examination. Coincidental hypervascularity was found in 44 of 72 nodules (61%; 44% of 1-2-cm nodules and 84% of 2-3-cm nodules). Fourteen nodules (19.4%) had negative results with both techniques (hypovascular nodules). Biopsy showed HCC in 5 hypovascular nodules and in 11 of 14 nodules with hypervascularity using only one technique. All nodules larger than 2 cm finally resulted to be HCC. Not satisfying the EASL imaging criteria for diagnosis were 38% of HCCs 1 to 2 cm (17% hypovascular) and 16% of those 2 to 3 cm (none hypovascular). In conclusion, the noninvasive EASL criteria for diagnosis of HCC are satisfied in only 61% of small nodules in cirrhosis; thus, biopsy frequently is required in this setting. Relying on imaging techniques in nodules of 1 to 2 cm would miss the diagnosis of HCC in up to 38% of cases. Any nodule larger than 2 cm should be regarded as highly suspicious for HCC.