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.

Liver fibrosis imaging: A clinical review of ultrasound and magnetic resonance elastography.

Liver fibrosis is a histological hallmark of most chronic liver diseases, which can progress to cirrhosis and liver failure, and predisposes to hepatocellular carcinoma. Accurate diagnosis of liver fibrosis is necessary for prognosis, risk stratification, and treatment decision-making. Liver biopsy, the reference standard for assessing liver fibrosis, is invasive, costly, and impractical for surveillance and treatment response monitoring. Elastography offers a noninvasive, objective, and quantitative alternative to liver biopsy. This article discusses the need for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis and reviews the comparative advantages and limitations of ultrasound and magnetic resonance elastography techniques with respect to their basic concepts, acquisition, processing, and diagnostic performance. Variations in clinical contexts of use and common pitfalls associated with each technique are considered. In addition, current challenges and future directions to improve the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of elastography techniques are discussed. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:25-42.

Geographic and Temporal Trends in COVID-Associated Acute Kidney Injury in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: AKI is associated with mortality in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, its incidence, geographic distribution, and temporal trends since the start of the pandemic are understudied. METHODS: Electronic health record data were obtained from 53 health systems in the United States in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative. We selected hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 6, 2020, and January 6, 2022. AKI was determined with serum creatinine and diagnosis codes. Time was divided into 16-week periods (P1-6) and geographical regions into Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Multivariable models were used to analyze the risk factors for AKI or mortality. RESULTS: Of a total cohort of 336,473, 129,176 (38%) patients had AKI. Fifty-six thousand three hundred and twenty-two (17%) lacked a diagnosis code but had AKI based on the change in serum creatinine. Similar to patients coded for AKI, these patients had higher mortality compared with those without AKI. The incidence of AKI was highest in P1 (47%; 23,097/48,947), lower in P2 (37%; 12,102/32,513), and relatively stable thereafter. Compared with the Midwest, the Northeast, South, and West had higher adjusted odds of AKI in P1. Subsequently, the South and West regions continued to have the highest relative AKI odds. In multivariable models, AKI defined by either serum creatinine or diagnostic code and the severity of AKI was associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and distribution of COVID-19-associated AKI changed since the first wave of the pandemic in the United States. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_08_08_CJN0000000000000192.mp3.

COVID-19-associated AKI in hospitalized US patients: incidence, temporal trends, geographical distribution, risk factors and mortality.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, however, its incidence, geographic distribution, and temporal trends since the start of the pandemic are understudied. Methods: Electronic health record data were obtained from 53 health systems in the United States (US) in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). We selected hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 6th, 2020, and January 6th, 2022. AKI was determined with serum creatinine (SCr) and diagnosis codes. Time were divided into 16-weeks (P1-6) periods and geographical regions into Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. Multivariable models were used to analyze the risk factors for AKI or mortality. Results: Out of a total cohort of 306,061, 126,478 (41.0 %) patients had AKI. Among these, 17.9% lacked a diagnosis code but had AKI based on the change in SCr. Similar to patients coded for AKI, these patients had higher mortality compared to those without AKI. The incidence of AKI was highest in P1 (49.3%), reduced in P2 (40.6%), and relatively stable thereafter. Compared to the Midwest, the Northeast, South, and West had higher adjusted AKI incidence in P1, subsequently, the South and West regions continued to have the highest relative incidence. In multivariable models, AKI defined by either SCr or diagnostic code, and the severity of AKI was associated with mortality. Conclusions: Uncoded cases of COVID-19-associated AKI are common and associated with mortality. The incidence and distribution of COVID-19-associated AKI have changed since the first wave of the pandemic in the US.