Liver Transplant for Nonhepatocellular Malignancies: A Review for Radiologists.

Although liver transplant is traditionally only performed for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the last decade has seen a resurgence in its use for non-HCC malignancies, likely due to improvements in neoadjuvant treatment regimens and the establishment of well-defined eligibility criteria. Given promising survival results, patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, neuroendocrine liver metastases, and hepatic hemangioendothelioma are eligible to receive Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points for tumors that meet well-defined criteria. Patients with additional tumors such as colorectal cancer liver metastases, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma may undergo transplant at specialized centers with well-defined protocols, although these patients are not yet eligible for MELD exception. Transplant eligibility criteria commonly incorporate imaging findings; however, because of the relatively novel and evolving nature of liver transplant for non-HCC malignancies, radiologists may be unaware of relevant criteria or the implications of their imaging interpretations. Knowledge of the allocation process, previous studies, and liver transplant selection criteria facilitates radiologists' active participation in multidisciplinary discussion, leading to better and more equitable care for transplant candidates with non-HCC malignancy. This review provides an overview of transplant allocation and selection criteria in patients with non-HCC malignancy, with an emphasis on imaging features and the role of the radiologist.

Utility of gadolinium for identifying the malignant potential of pancreatic cystic lesions.

PURPOSE: To determine if gadolinium is necessary for the diagnosis of a pancreatic cystic lesion (PCL) as benign or malignant by assessing inter- and intra-observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy for the presence of worrisome features/high-risk stigmata on non-contrast MRI compared to MRI with and without contrast, with cytopathology as a reference standard. METHODS: The institutional database was searched to identify consecutive patients that underwent EUS/FNA or surgical resection of an asymptomatic PCL performed from 01/01/2015 to 01/01/2019. Two abdominal radiologists independently evaluated PCLs on MRI with all sequences except for contrast-enhanced sequences followed by a second reading with data from the entire MRI including pre- and post-contrast sequences. Cyst size, growth, and the presence of worrisome features/high-risk stigmata were assessed for each cyst on both datasets. RESULTS: There were 87 patients with 87 pancreatic cysts; 76(87.4%) were benign and 11 (12.7%) were malignant. The presence of any worrisome features/high-risk stigmata for reader 1 was concordant on both MRIs in 95.4% (83/87; k = 0.874) of cases and for reader 2 was concordant in 96.6% (84/87; k = 0.920) of cases. The diagnostic accuracy of the two datasets when the presence of any worrisome feature/high-risk stigmata was predictive of malignancy was identical for reader 1 (AUC = 0.622 for both; p = 1.0) and similar for reader 2 (AUC 0.569 and 0.589; p = 0.08) for both MRI datasets. CONCLUSION: The addition of gadolinium had no significant impact in the diagnosis of a benign versus malignant PCL, with similar intra-observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy for both readers when using contrast-enhanced and unenhanced MRI datasets.

Evaluation of the LI-RADS treatment response algorithm in hepatocellular carcinoma after trans-arterial chemoembolization.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS treatment response algorithm (LR-TRA) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for the detection of viable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on MRI after trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study includes cirrhotic patients that underwent trans-arterial chemoembolization prior to liver transplantation from 2013 to 2017 with a pre- and post-treatment MRI available. Three blinded readers assigned a LR-TRA and mRECIST category to each lesion. Lesions on MRI and explant pathology were matched and characterized as complete (100% necrosis) or incomplete necrosis (≤99% necrosis). Diagnostic performance of LR-TRA and mRECIST were calculated with a generalized estimating equation. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients with 71 lesions were included, 47 with incomplete and 24 with complete necrosis. In consensus, 45 lesions were categorized as LR-TR Nonviable, of which 62.2% (28/45) had incomplete and 37.8% (17/45) had complete necrosis. Six lesions were categorized as LR-TR Equivocal, of which 33.3% (2/6) had incomplete and 66.7% (4/6) had complete necrosis. Twenty lesions were categorized as LR-TR Viable of which 85.0% (17/20) had incomplete and 15.0% (3/20) had complete necrosis. The sensitivity of LR-TR Viable for detecting incompletely necrotic tumor when LR-TR Equivocal was considered as viable, in consensus was 40.4%; specificity 70.8%; accuracy 50.7%. The sensitivity of mRECIST for detecting incompletely necrotic tumor was 37.0%; specificity 79.2%; accuracy 51.4%. There was no significant difference in diagnostic performance between mRECIST and LR-TRA (p = 0.14-0.33). Agreement for LR-TRA category was moderate (k = 0.53 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.67]). CONCLUSION: LI-RADS treatment response algorithm demonstrates high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity for the detection of viable HCC after TACE in a North American cirrhotic cohort, without significant difference in diagnostic performance between LR-TRA and mRECIST.

Diagnostic Performance of LI-RADS Version 2018, LI-RADS Version 2017, and OPTN Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) was updated in 2018 (LI-RADS version 2018 [LI-RADSv2018]) to facilitate integration into the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2018 clinical practice guidelines and involved changes in LR-5 categorization and threshold growth definitions. There are also differences between the criteria for LI-RADSv2018 LR-5 category and the criteria for Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) class 5. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performances of LI-RADSv2018, LI-RADS version 2017 (LI-RADSv2017), and OPTN criteria for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In this retrospective study, 122 patients with 159 observations were included who met LI-RADS criteria for at risk for HCC and had at least one hepatic observation on MRI performed between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2018 and who had histopathology results (n = 104) or follow-up imaging (n = 55) as reference standards. Three abdominal radiologists assigned categories independently and in consensus using LI-RADSv2017, LI-RADSv2018, and OPTN criteria. Diagnostic performance was compared among the guidelines with a generalized estimating equation. RESULTS. Fourteen of 159 (8.8%) observations were assigned a different category according to LI-RADSv2018 compared with LI-RADSv2017. Eight of 31 (25.8%) LR-4 observations using v2017 were recategorized as LR-5 using v2018, and all eight were HCC. Six of 31 (19.4%) LR-4 observations based on v2017 were recategorized as LR-3 using v2018, and all six were non-HCCs. Seven of 114 (6.1%) observations not meeting OPTN class 5 criteria were LR-5 using v2018, and all seven were HCC. Sensitivity for HCC of LR-5 and LR-TIV+5 (i.e., LR-TIV [tumor in vein] definitely due to HCC) categories based on v2018 was significantly higher than that based on v2017 (63.9% vs 55.2%, respectively; p = 0.008) without a difference in specificity (97.3% vs 97.3%; p = 1.00). Sensitivity of LR-5 and LR-TIV+5 in LI-RADSv2018 was significantly higher than the sensitivity of class 5 in OPTN criteria (63.9% vs 53.6%; p = 0.004) without a difference in specificity (97.3% vs 97.3%; p = 1.00). Reader agreement was moderate for overall LIRADSv2017 and LI-RADSv2018 categories (κ = 0.504 and 0.561, respectively); substantial for LR-5 and LR-TIV+5 categories as diagnostic of HCC versus other categories for both v2017 and v2018 (κ = 0.758 and 0.802, respectively); and substantial for OPTN class 5 criteria (κ = 0.756). CONCLUSION. The diagnostic performance of LI-RADSv2018 is higher, with higher sensitivity and similar specificity, than the diagnostic performance of LI-RADSv2017 and OPTN criteria for HCC.

Imaging and Treatment of Complications of Abdominal and Pelvic Mesh Repair.

Surgical mesh is used most frequently for tension-free repair of abdominal wall hernias in adults, because the rate of hernia recurrence is lower with mesh than with primary soft-tissue repair. Since the introduction of polypropylene mesh in the middle of the 20th century, many mesh materials and configurations for specific surgical procedures have been developed. In addition to abdominal wall hernia repair, mesh may be used for repair of diaphragmatic hernias, urinary incontinence in women (female slings), genitourinary prolapse (vaginal mesh and sacrocolpopexy), rectal prolapse (rectopexy), and postprostatectomy male urinary incontinence (male slings). General mesh repair complications include chronic pain; fluid collections such as seromas, hematomas, and abscesses; adhesions that may lead to intestinal blockage; erosion into solid or hollow viscera including enterocutaneous fistulizing disease; and mesh failure characterized by mesh shrinkage, detachment, and migration with repair malfunction. Several mesh complications are often diagnosed with imaging, primarily with CT and less frequently with MRI and US, despite variable mesh visibility at imaging. This article reviews the common surgical mesh applications in the abdomen and pelvis, discusses imaging of mesh repair complications, and provides complication treatment highlights.©RSNA, 2020.

Imaging of chronic male pelvic pain: what the abdominal imager should know.

Chronic pelvic pain is an important but underrecognized cause of morbidity in men. While there is abundant literature discussing female pelvic pain and the diagnostic role of imaging, much less attention has been given to imaging of non-gynecologic causes of chronic pelvic pain. Chronic pelvic pain in men can be a challenge to diagnose as pain may arise from visceral, musculoskeletal, or neurovascular pathology. Imaging of the pelvic viscera has been covered in detail elsewhere in this edition and therefore will not be reviewed here. We will focus upon topics less familiar to the abdominal radiologist, including imaging of pelvic floor, musculoskeletal, and neurovascular pathology.