The Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US Score Effect on Surgical Resection Rate.

Background The Ovarian-Adnexal Imaging Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US risk score can be used to accurately stratify ovarian lesions based on morphologic characteristics. However, there are no large multicenter studies assessing the potential impact of using O-RADS US version 2022 risk score in patients referred for surgery for an ovarian or adnexal lesion. Purpose To retrospectively determine the proportion of patients with ovarian or adnexal lesions without acute symptoms who may have been managed conservatively by using the O-RADS US version 2022 risk score. Materials and Methods This multicenter retrospective study included patients with ovarian cystic lesions and nonacute symptoms who underwent surgical resection after US before the introduction of O-RADS US between January 2011 and December 2014. Investigators blinded to the final diagnoses recorded lesion imaging features and O-RADS US risk scores. The frequency of malignancy and the diagnostic performance of the risk score were calculated. The Mann-Whitney test and Fisher exact test were performed, with P < .05 indicating a statistically significant difference. Results A total of 377 patients with surgically resected lesions were included. Among the resected lesions, 42% (157 of 377) were assigned an O-RADS US risk score of 2. Of the O-RADS US 2 lesions, 54% (86 of 157) were nonneoplastic, 45% (70 of 157) were dermoids or other benign tumors, and less than 1% (one of 157) were malignant. Using O-RADS US 4 as the optimal threshold for malignancy prediction yielded a 94% (68 of 72) sensitivity, 64% (195 of 305) specificity, 38% (68 of 178) positive predictive value, and 98% (195 of 199) negative predictive value. Conclusion In patients without acute symptoms who underwent surgery for ovarian and adnexal lesions before the O-RADS US risk score was published, nearly half (42%) of surgically resected lesions retrospectively met the O-RADS US 2 version 2022 criteria. In these patients, imaging follow-up or conservative management could have been offered. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Fournier in this issue.

Diagnostic performance of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 in non-cirrhotic hepatitis C virus infection.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS among patients with non-cirrhotic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. METHODS: This retrospective, IRB-approved, single-center study included 66 observations from 43 adult patients (11 women, 32 men; median age 65 years). All patients received liver protocol CT or MRI from 2010 to 2023, had HCV, and did not have cirrhosis based on histopathology. Three board-certified abdominal radiologists blinded to histopathology and imaging follow-up assessed each observation for major features and final LI-RADS category, and inter-reader agreements with weighted kappa were calculated. The positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of in diagnosing HCC and overall malignancy was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 66 observations, 53 (80%) were malignant and 13 (20%) were benign. Positive predictive value for HCC was 0-0% for LR-1, 0-0% for LR-2, 0-33% for LR-3, 57-100% for LR-4, 98-100% for LR-5, 25-50% for LR-M, and 83-100% for LR-TIV. Positive predictive value for overall malignancy was 0-0% for LR-1, 0-0% for LR-2, 0-33% for LR-3, 57-100% for LR-4, 98-100% for LR-5, 100-100% for LR-M, and 100-100% for LR-TIV. For LR-5 in identifying HCC, sensitivity ranged from 74 to 90%, specificity from 94 to 100%, and accuracy from 80 to 91%. For the composite of LR-5, LR-M, or LR-TIV in identifying overall malignancy, sensitivity was 87-98%, specificity was 92-100%, and accuracy was 89-97%. The inter-reader agreement for major features varied from moderate to substantial, with substantial agreement for the final category. CONCLUSION: CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 criteria can be applied to non-cirrhotic HCV patients with near-perfect specificity.

A Lexicon for First-Trimester US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Recommendations.

The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound convened a multisociety panel to develop a first-trimester US lexicon based on scientific evidence, societal guidelines, and expert consensus that would be appropriate for imagers, clinicians, and patients. Through a modified Delphi process with consensus of at least 80%, agreement was reached for preferred terms, synonyms, and terms to avoid. An intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) is defined as a pregnancy implanted in a normal location within the uterus. In contrast, an ectopic pregnancy (EP) is any pregnancy implanted in an abnormal location, whether extrauterine or intrauterine, thus categorizing cesarean scar implantations as EPs. The term pregnancy of unknown location is used in the setting of a pregnant patient without evidence of a definite or probable IUP or EP at transvaginal US. Since cardiac development is a gradual process and cardiac chambers are not fully formed in the first trimester, the term cardiac activity is recommended in lieu of 'heart motion' or 'heartbeat.' The terms 'living' and 'viable' should also be avoided in the first trimester. 'Pregnancy failure' is replaced by early pregnancy loss (EPL). When paired with various modifiers, EPL is used to describe a pregnancy in the first trimester that may or will not progress, is in the process of expulsion, or has either incompletely or completely passed.

A Lexicon for First-Trimester US: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Recommendations.

The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound convened a multisociety panel to develop a first-trimester US lexicon based on scientific evidence, societal guidelines, and expert consensus that would be appropriate for imagers, clinicians, and patients. Through a modified Delphi process with consensus of at least 80%, agreement was reached for preferred terms, synonyms, and terms to avoid. An intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) is defined as a pregnancy implanted in a normal location within the uterus. In contrast, an ectopic pregnancy (EP) is any pregnancy implanted in an abnormal location, whether extrauterine or intrauterine, thus categorizing cesarean scar implantations as EPs. The term pregnancy of unknown location is used in the setting of a pregnant patient without evidence of a definite or probable IUP or EP at transvaginal US. Since cardiac development is a gradual process and cardiac chambers are not fully formed in the first trimester, the term cardiac activity is recommended in lieu of 'heart motion' or 'heartbeat.' The terms 'living' and 'viable' should also be avoided in the first trimester. 'Pregnancy failure' is replaced by early pregnancy loss (EPL). When paired with various modifiers, EPL is used to describe a pregnancy in the first trimester that may or will not progress, is in the process of expulsion, or has either incompletely or completely passed. © RSNA and Elsevier, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is a simultaneous joint publication in Radiology and American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. All rights reserved. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either version may be used in citing this article. See also the editorial by Scoutt and Norton in this issue.

Large language models' responses to liver cancer surveillance, diagnosis, and management questions: accuracy, reliability, readability.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy, reliability, and readability of publicly available large language models in answering fundamental questions on hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis and management. METHODS: Twenty questions on liver cancer diagnosis and management were asked in triplicate to ChatGPT-3.5 (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Bing (Microsoft). Responses were assessed by six fellowship-trained physicians from three academic liver transplant centers who actively diagnose and/or treat liver cancer. Responses were categorized as accurate (score 1; all information is true and relevant), inadequate (score 0; all information is true, but does not fully answer the question or provides irrelevant information), or inaccurate (score - 1; any information is false). Means with standard deviations were recorded. Responses were considered as a whole accurate if mean score was > 0 and reliable if mean score was > 0 across all responses for the single question. Responses were also quantified for readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability and accuracy across 60 responses were compared using one-way ANOVAs with Tukey's multiple comparison tests. RESULTS: Of the twenty questions, ChatGPT answered nine (45%), Gemini answered 12 (60%), and Bing answered six (30%) questions accurately; however, only six (30%), eight (40%), and three (15%), respectively, were both accurate and reliable. There were no significant differences in accuracy between any chatbot. ChatGPT responses were the least readable (mean Flesch Reading Ease Score 29; college graduate), followed by Gemini (30; college) and Bing (40; college; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Large language models provide complex responses to basic questions on hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis and management that are seldomly accurate, reliable, or readable.

Differentiation of Hepatocellular Adenoma Subtypes and Focal Nodular Hyperplasia on Gadoxetate Disodium-Enhanced MRI: An Updated Diagnostic Algorithm.

This study evaluated an updated diagnostic algorithm for distinguishing HCA subtypes and FNH on gadoxetate disodium­enhanced MRI. The algorithm included a pathway recommending biopsy for indeterminate lesions that could represent HCA with beta-catenin mutations (which are at risk of malignant transformation) or I-HCA with an atypical MRI appearance.

Diagnostic performance of CT/MRI LI-RADS v2018 in non-cirrhotic steatotic liver disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) among patients with non-cirrhotic steatotic liver disease (SLD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved, retrospective study included 119 observations from 77 adult patients (36 women, 41 men; median 64 years) who underwent liver CT or MRI from 2010 to 2023. All patients had histopathologic evidence of SLD without cirrhosis. Three board-certified abdominal radiologists blinded to tissue diagnosis and imaging follow-up assessed observations with LI-RADS. The positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inter-reader agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-five observations (63%) were benign and 44 (37%) were malignant. PPV for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was 0-0% for LR-1, 0-0% for LR-2, 0-7% for LR-3, 11-20% for LR-4, 75-88% for LR-5, 0-8% for LR-M, and 50-75% for LR-TIV. For LR-5 in identifying HCC, sensitivity was 79-83%, specificity was 91-97%, and accuracy was 89-92%. For composite categories of LR-5, LR-M, or LR-TIV in identifying malignancy, sensitivity was 86-89%, specificity was 85-96%, and accuracy was 86-93%. The most common false positives for LR-5 were hepatocellular adenomas. Only 59-65% of HCCs showed non-peripheral washout at CT versus 67-83% at MRI, though nearly all had an enhancing capsule. PPV and accuracy of LR-5 for HCC did not differ by modality. Inter-reader agreement for major features ranged from 0.667 to 0.830 and was 0.766 for the final category. CONCLUSION: Despite challenges such as the lower prevalence of non-peripheral washout at CT and overlapping imaging features between HCC and hepatocellular adenomas, LI-RADS may serve as an effective tool in assessing focal liver lesions in SLD. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: LI-RADS in non-cirrhotic steatotic liver disease can effectively diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma and malignancy at computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, thereby guiding clinical management decisions and expediting patient care pathways. KEY POINTS: Performance of LI-RADS is unknown in non-cirrhotic patients with steatotic liver disease. LI-RADS 5 category showed a high pooled specificity of 91-97% for hepatocellular carcinoma. LI-RADS can non-invasively risk stratify focal liver observations in non-cirrhotic patients with steatotic liver disease.

Follow-up imaging and surgical costs associated with different guidelines for management of incidentally detected gallbladder polyps.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare follow-up imaging and surgical cost implications of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) guidelines, 2017 and 2022 European (EUR) guidelines, 2020 Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) recommendations, and 2013 American College of Radiology (ACR) White Paper for managing incidentally detected gallbladder polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 253 consecutive patients with gallbladder polyps identified on ultrasound were independently reviewed by three radiologists for polyp size and morphology. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, cholecystectomy (if performed) pathological findings, or any subsequent diagnosis of gallbladder cancer. For each patient, the following were calculated for each of the 5 guidelines studied: 1) number of recommended follow-up ultrasounds based on initial presentation, 2) number of surgical consultations recommended based on initial presentation, 3) number of surgical consultations recommended based on growth, and 4) associated imaging and surgical costs. Interrater agreement was calculated. RESULTS: The SRU 2022 guidelines suggested significantly fewer follow-up ultrasounds and surgical consultations, leading to a cost reduction of 96.5 % and 96.7 % compared to European 2022 and 2017, respectively; 86.5 % compared to CAR; and 86.2 % compared to ACR guidelines. With SRU Recommendations, the majority of gallbladder polyps would be classified as extremely low risk (68.4 %), 30.8 % low risk, and 0.8 % indeterminate risk. In our cohort, a single case of gallbladder cancer was identified (26 mm) which would be recommended for surgical consult by all guidelines. CONCLUSION: The SRU 2022 guidelines can lead to significant savings for patients, health systems, and society, while reducing unnecessary medical interventions for managing incidentally detected gallbladder polyps.

The Future Role of Abdominal US in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance.

Abdominal US is currently the best-validated surveillance strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in at-risk patients. It is the only modality shown to have completed all five phases of validation and can achieve high sensitivity and specificity for HCC detection, especially when conducted by expert sonographers in high-volume centers. However, US also has limitations, including operator dependency and varying sensitivity in clinical practice. Further, the sensitivity of US for early-stage HCC detection is lower in patients with obesity or nonviral liver disease, increasingly common populations undergoing surveillance. Imaging-based and blood-based surveillance strategies, including abbreviated MRI and biomarker panels, may overcome some limitations of US-based surveillance. Both strategies have promising test performance in phase II and phase III biomarker studies and are undergoing prospective validation. Considering the variation in HCC risk and test performance between patients, there will likely be a shift away from a one-size-fits-all approach and toward precision screening, in which the "best" test is selected based on individual patient characteristics. In this upcoming era of precision HCC screening among patients with cirrhosis, US will likely continue to have an important, albeit reduced, surveillance role.

New LI-RADS Ultrasound Surveillance v2024: A Conversation With Working Group Cochair Dr Aya Kamaya.

In this video article, Dr. Aya Kamaya, cochair of the LI-RADS Ultrasound Surveillance Working Group, discusses the new LI-RADS Ultrasound Surveillance version 2024 recommendations.

Congestive Hepatopathy: Pathophysiology, Workup, and Imaging Findings with Pathologic Correlation.

Liver congestion is increasingly encountered in clinical practice and presents diagnostic pitfalls of which radiologists must be aware. The complex altered hemodynamics associated with liver congestion leads to diffuse parenchymal changes and the development of benign and malignant nodules. Distinguishing commonly encountered benign hypervascular lesions, such as focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH)-like nodules, from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging due to overlapping imaging features. FNH-like lesions enhance during the hepatic arterial phase and remain isoenhancing relative to the background liver parenchyma but infrequently appear to wash out at delayed phase imaging, similar to what might be seen with HCC. Heterogeneity, presence of an enhancing capsule, washout during the portal venous phase, intermediate signal intensity at T2-weighted imaging, restricted diffusion, and lack of uptake at hepatobiliary phase imaging point toward the diagnosis of HCC, although these features are not sensitive individually. It is important to emphasize that the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) algorithm cannot be applied in congested livers since major LI-RADS features lack specificity in distinguishing HCC from benign hypervascular lesions in this population. Also, the morphologic changes and increased liver stiffness caused by congestion make the imaging diagnosis of cirrhosis difficult. The authors discuss the complex liver macro- and microhemodynamics underlying liver congestion; propose a more inclusive approach to and conceptualization of liver congestion; describe the pathophysiology of liver congestion, hepatocellular injury, and the development of benign and malignant nodules; review the imaging findings and mimics of liver congestion and hypervascular lesions; and present a diagnostic algorithm for approaching hypervascular liver lesions. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Management of incidentally detected gallbladder polyps: a review of clinical scenarios using the 2022 SRU gallbladder polyp consensus guidelines.

Gallbladder (GB) polyps are a common incidental finding on sonography, but only a small fraction of polyps become GB cancer. The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) consensus committee recently performed an extensive literature review and published guidelines for GB polyp follow-up/management to provide clarity among the many heterogeneous recommendations that are available to clinicians. As these guidelines have become adopted into clinical practice, challenging clinical scenarios have arisen including GB polyps in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), high risk geographic/genetic patient populations, shrinking polyps, pedunculated vs sessile polyps, thin vs thick stalked polyps, vascular polyps and multiple polyps. According to the SRU guidelines, clinicians should refer to gastroenterology guidelines when managing GB polyps in patients with known PSC. If patients at high geographic/genetic risk develop GB polyps, 'extremely low risk' polyps may be managed as 'low risk' and 10-14 mm 'extremely low risk' or '7-14 mm' low risk polyps that decrease in size by ≥ 4 mm require no follow-up. Thin-stalked or pedunculated polyps are 'extremely low risk' and thick-stalked pedunculated polyps are 'low risk'. Sessile polyps are 'low risk' but should receive immediate specialist referral if features suggestive of GB cancer are present. Neither polyp multiplicity nor vascularity impact risk of GB cancer and follow up should be based on morphology alone.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system: clinical validation in a prospective multinational study in North America and Europe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The objective of this study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the American College of Radiology Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System LR-5 characterization for HCC diagnosis in North American or European patients. APPROACH AND RESULTS: A prospective multinational cohort study was performed from January 2018 through November 2022 at 11 academic and nonacademic centers in North America and Europe. Patients at risk for HCC with at least 1 liver observation not previously treated, identified on ultrasound (US), or multiphase CT or MRI performed as a part of standard clinical care were eligible for the study. All participants were examined with CEUS of the liver within 4 weeks of CT/MRI or tissue diagnosis to characterize up to 2 liver nodules per participant using ACR CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. Definite HCC diagnosis on the initial CT/MRI, imaging follow-up, or histology for CT/MRI-indeterminate nodules were used as reference standards. A total of 545 nodules had confirmed reference standards in 480 patients, 73.8% were HCC, 5.5% were other malignancies, and 20.7% were nonmalignant. The specificity of CEUS LR-5 for HCC was 95.1% (95% CI 90.1%-97.7%), sensitivity 62.9% (95% CI 57.9%-67.7%), positive predictive value 97.3% (95% CI 94.5%-98.7%), and negative predictive value 47.7% (95% CI 41.7%-53.8%). In addition, benign CEUS characterization (LR-1 or LR-2) had 100% specificity and 100% positive predictive value for nonmalignant liver nodules. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System provides an accurate categorization of liver nodules in participants at risk for HCC.

Establishing a Point-of-Care Ultrasound Program: An Institutional Approach for Developing a Point-of-Care Ultrasound Program Infrastructure.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly accelerating in adoption and applications outside the traditional realm of diagnostic radiology departments. Although the use of this imaging technology in a distributed fashion has great potential, there are many associated challenges. To address these challenges, the authors developed an enterprise-wide POCUS program at their institution (Stanford Health Care). Here, the authors share their experience, the governance organization, and their approaches to device and information security, training, and quality assurance. The authors also share the basic principles they use to guide their approach to manage these challenges. Through their work, the authors have learned that a foundational framework of defining POCUS and the different levels of POCUS use and delineating program management elements are critical. The authors hope that their experience will be helpful to others who are also interested in POCUS or in the process of creating POCUS programs at their institutions. With a clearly established framework, patient safety and quality of care are improved for everyone.

Growth Kinetics of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms by Histopathologic Grade.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study are to describe the growth kinetics of pathologically proven, treatment-naive pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (panNENs) at imaging surveillance and to determine their association with histopathologic grade and Ki-67. METHODS: This study included 100 panNENs from 95 patients who received pancreas protocol computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging from January 2005 to July 2022. All masses were treatment-naive, had histopathologic correlation, and were imaged with at least 2 computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at least 90 days apart. Growth kinetics was assessed using linear and specific growth rate, stratified by grade and Ki-67. Masses were also assessed qualitatively to determine other possible imaging predictors of grade. RESULTS: There were 76 grade 1 masses, 17 grade 2 masses, and 7 grade 3 masses. Median (interquartile range) linear growth rates were 0.06 cm/y (0-0.20), 0.40 cm/y (0.22-1.06), and 2.70 cm/y (0.41-3.89) for grade 1, 2, and 3 masses, respectively (P < 0.001). Linear growth rate correlated with Ki-67 with r2 of 0.623 (P < 0.001). At multivariate analyses, linear growth rate was the only imaging feature significantly associated with grade (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Growth kinetics correlate with Ki-67 and grade. Grade 1 panNENs grow slowly versus grade 2-3 panNENs.

Accuracy of Information Provided by ChatGPT Regarding Liver Cancer Surveillance and Diagnosis.

ChatGPT did not reliably provide accurate information to 20 questions about liver cancer surveillance and diagnosis, as assessed by six physicians who actively diagnose and/or treat liver cancer. Answers deemed inaccurate commonly related to questions on specific LI-RADS categories and included contradictory or falsely reassuring, if not wrong, information.

External Validation of a Five-Tiered CT Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Retrospective Five-Reader Study.

BACKGROUND. In 2022, a five-tiered CT algorithm was proposed for predicting whether a small (cT1a) solid renal mass represents clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this external validation study was to evaluate the proposed CT algorithm for diagnosis of ccRCC among small solid renal masses. METHODS. This retrospective study included 93 patients (median age, 62 years; 42 women, 51 men) with 97 small solid renal masses that were seen on corticomedullary phase contrast-enhanced CT performed between January 2012 and July 2022 and subsequently underwent surgical resection. Five readers (three attending radiologists, two clinical fellows) independently evaluated masses for the mass-to-cortex corticomedullary attenuation ratio and heterogeneity score; these scores were used to derive the CT score by use of the previously proposed CT algorithm. The CT score's sensitivity, specificity, and PPV for ccRCC were calculated at threshold of 4 or greater, and the NPV for ccRCC was calculated at a threshold of 3 or greater (consistent with thresholds in studies of the MRI-based clear cell likelihood score and the CT algorithm's initial study). The CT score's sensitivity and specificity for papillary RCC were calculated at a threshold of 2 or less. Interreader agreement was assessed using the Gwet agreement coefficient (AC1). RESULTS. Overall, 61 of 97 masses (63%) were malignant and 43 of 97 (44%) were ccRCC. Across readers, CT score had sensitivity ranging from 47% to 95% (pooled sensitivity, 74% [95% CI, 68-80%]), specificity ranging from 19% to 83% (pooled specificity, 59% [95% CI, 52-67%]), PPV ranging from 48% to 76% (pooled PPV, 59% [95% CI, 49-71%]), and NPV ranging from 83% to 100% (pooled NPV, 90% [95% CI, 84-95%]), for ccRCC. A CT score of 2 or less had sensitivity ranging from 44% to 100% and specificity ranging from 77% to 98% for papillary RCC (representing nine of 97 masses). Interreader agreement was substantial for attenuation score (AC1 = 0.70), poor for heterogeneity score (AC1 = 0.17), fair for five-tiered CT score (AC1 = 0.32), and fair for dichotomous CT score at a threshold of 4 or greater (AC1 = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.14-0.33]). CONCLUSION. The five-tiered CT algorithm for evaluation of small solid renal masses was tested in an external sample and showed high NPV for ccRCC. CLINICAL IMPACT. The CT algorithm may be used for risk stratification and patient selection for active surveillance by identifying patients unlikely to have ccRCC.