Interobserver and intermodality agreement of standardized algorithms for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk patients: CEUS-LI-RADS versus MRI-LI-RADS.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the interobserver agreement for the recently introduced contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-based algorithm CEUS-LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System) versus the well-established magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-LI-RADS for non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. METHODS: Focal liver lesions in 50 high-risk patients (mean age 66.2 ± 11.8 years; 39 male) were assessed retrospectively with CEUS and MRI. Two independent observers reviewed CEUS and MRI examinations, separately, classifying observations according to CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016 and MRI-LI-RADSv.2014. Interobserver agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Forty-three lesions were HCCs; two were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas; five were benign lesions. Arterial phase hyperenhancement was perceived less frequently with CEUS than with MRI (37/50 / 38/50 lesions = 74%/78% [CEUS; observer 1/observer 2] versus 46/50 / 44/50 lesions = 92%/88% [MRI; observer 1/observer 2]). Washout appearance was observed in 34/50 / 20/50 lesions = 68%/40% with CEUS and 31/50 / 31/50 lesions = 62%/62%) with MRI. Interobserver agreement was moderate for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.511/0.565 [CEUS/MRI]) and "washout" (ĸ = 0.490/0.582 [CEUS/MRI]), fair for CEUS-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.309) and substantial for MRI-LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.609). Intermodality agreement was fair for arterial hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.329), slight to fair for "washout" (ĸ = 0.202) and LI-RADS category (ĸ = 0.218) CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement is substantial for MRI-LI-RADS and only fair for CEUS-LI-RADS. This is mostly because interobserver agreement in the perception of washout appearance is better in MRI than in CEUS. Further refinement of the LI-RADS algorithms and increasing education and practice may be necessary to improve the concordance between CEUS and MRI for the final LI-RADS categorization. KEY POINTS: • CEUS-LI-RADS and MRI-LIRADS enable standardized non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients. • With CEUS, interobserver agreement is better for arterial hyperenhancement than for "washout". • Interobserver agreement for major features is moderate for both CEUS and MRI. • Interobserver agreement for LI-RADS category is substantial for MRI, and fair for CEUS. • Interobserver-agreement for CEUS-LI-RADS will presumably improve with ongoing use of the algorithm.

Interobserver Agreement for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS)-Based Standardized Algorithms for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in High-Risk Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This pilot study aimed at assessing interobserver agreement with two contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) algorithms for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients. METHODS: Focal liver lesions in 55 high-risk patients were assessed independently by three blinded observers with two standardized CEUS algorithms: ESCULAP (Erlanger Synopsis of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Liver Lesion Assessment in Patients at risk) and ACR-CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016 (American College of Radiology CEUS-Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System). Lesions were categorized according to size and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the arterial, portal-venous and late phase. Interobserver agreement for assessment of enhancement pattern and categorization was compared between both CEUS algorithms. Additionally, diagnostic accuracy for the definitive diagnosis of HCC was compared. Histology and/or CE-MRI and follow-up served as reference standards. RESULTS: 55 patients were included in the study (male/female, 44/ 11; mean age: 65.9 years). 90.9 % had cirrhosis. Histological findings were available in 39/55 lesions (70.9 %). Reference standard of the 55 lesions revealed 48 HCCs, 2 intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinomas (ICCs), and 5 non-HCC-non-ICC lesions. Interobserver agreement was moderate to substantial for arterial phase hyperenhancement (ĸ = 0.53 - 0.67), and fair to moderate for contrast washout in the portal-venous or late phase (ĸ = 0.33 - 0.53). Concerning the CEUS-based algorithms, the interreader agreement was substantial for the ESCULAP category (ĸ = 0.64 - 0.68) and fair for the CEUS-LI-RADS® category (ĸ = 0.3 - 0.39). Disagreement between observers was mostly due to different perception of washout. CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement is better for ESCULAP than for CEUS-LI-RADS®. This is mostly due to the fact that perception of contrast washout varies between different observers. However, interobserver agreement is good for arterial phase hyperenhancement, which is the key diagnostic feature for the diagnosis of HCC with CEUS in the cirrhotic liver.

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: ESCULAP versus CEUS-LI-RADS.

OBJECTIVE: A comparison is made of two contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) algorithms for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients: Erlanger Synopsis of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at Risk (ESCULAP) and American College of Radiology Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR-CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Focal liver lesions in 100 high-risk patients were assessed using both CEUS algorithms (ESCULAP and CEUS-LI-RADSv.2016) for a direct comparison. Lesions were categorized according to size and contrast enhancement in the arterial, portal venous and late phases.For the definite diagnosis of HCC, categories ESCULAP-4, ESCULAP-Tr and ESCULAP-V and CEUS-LI-RADS-LR-5, LR-Tr and LR-5-V were compared. In addition, CEUS-LI-RADS-category LR-M (definitely/probably malignant, but not specific for HCC) and ESCULAP-category C [intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (ICC)] were compared.Histology, CE-computed tomography and CE-MRI served as reference standards. RESULTS: The reference standard among 100 lesions included 87 HCCs, six ICCs and seven non-HCC-non-ICC-lesions. For the diagnosis of HCC, the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was significantly higher with ESCULAP versus CEUS-LI-RADS (94.3%/72.4%; p<0.01). Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value for ESCULAP/CEUS-LI-RADS were 94.3%/72.4%; 61.5%/69.2%; 94.3%/94%; and 61.5%/27.3%, respectively.The diagnostic accuracy for ICC (LR-M/ESCULAP-C) was identical with both algorithms (50%), with higher PPV for ESCULAP-C versus LR-M (75 vs. 50%). CONCLUSION: CEUS-based algorithms contribute toward standardized assessment and reporting of HCC-suspect lesions in high-risk patients. ESCULAP shows significantly higher diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and negative predictive value with no loss of specificity compared with CEUS-LI-RADS. Both algorithms have an excellent PPV. Arterial hyperenhancement is the key feature for the diagnosis of HCC with CEUS. Washout should not be a necessary prerequisite for the diagnosis of definite HCC. CEUS-LI-RADS in its current version is inferior to ESCULAP for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC. There are two ways to improve CEUS-LI-RADS: firstly, combination of the categories LR-4 and LR-5 for the diagnosis of definite HCC, and secondly, use of subtotal infiltration of a liver lobe as an additional feature.

Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical RhoA expression on survival in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a high-throughput analysis.

Among all human carcinomas, pancreatic cancer has one of the worst survival rates. Most patients will die of this cancer shortly after diagnosis, and currently, surgery is the only potential cure. Ductal adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type. The search for prognostic parameters has progressed from mere physical or histomorphological tumor properties to molecular parameters. These, in turn, might point toward new therapeutic strategies. The K-ras oncogene is known to play a role in early stages of ductal adenocarcinoma carcinogenesis, and ras homologues are differentially expressed in cancerous versus normal ductal cells. RhoA belongs to a family of ras homologues comprising RhoA, RhoB, and RhoC. It is a guanosine triphosphatase associated with the cytoskeleton that seems to be involved in epithelial mesenchymal transition, a process of dedifferentiation. Immunohistologic RhoA expression was studied in a tissue microarray of 94 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas and correlated with clinicopathologic parameters and follow-up. RhoA protein expression, measured as labeling intensity or evaluated as percentage of reactive tumor cells, correlated with overall survival. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that RhoA protein expression is independent from other known prognostic parameters such as tumor size or grade. Moreover, a score combining RhoA expression with tumor size and grade resulted in a highly significant increase in the prognostic value for the overall survival of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.