Skip to main content

Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System Categorization Between MRI and CT.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Corwin, MT; Fananapazir, G; Jin, M; Lamba, R; Bashir, MR
Published in: AJR Am J Roentgenol
February 2016

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether focal liver observations are categorized differently by CT and MRI using the Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System (LI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 58 patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver protocol CT and MRI within 1 month of each other. Two readers assigned a LI-RADS category for all focal liver observations in consensus. A significant category upgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS categories 1 and 2 or nonvisualization to LI-RADS categories 3-5, from LI-RADS category 3 to category 4 or 5, from LI-RADS category 4 to category 5, or from any category to LI-RADS category 5V. A significant downgrade was defined as a change from LI-RADS category 5 to categories 1-4, from LI-RADS category 4 to categories 1-3, or from LI-RADS category 3 to categories 1 or 2. RESULTS: The LI-RADS category was different between CT and MRI for 77.2% (176/228) of observations. A significant upgrade occurred on MRI for 42.5% (97/228) of observations because of nonvisualization by CT (n = 78), capsule (n = 8), arterial hyperenhancement (n = 4), intratumoral fat (n = 2), larger size (n = 2), tumor in portal vein (n = 2), and wash-out (n = 1). Of these 97 upgraded observations, two were upgraded to LI-RADS category 5V, 15 were upgraded to category 5, and 13 were upgraded to category 4. A significant downgrade occurred on MRI for 8.8% (20/228) of observations because of marked T2 hyperintensity (n = 14), smaller size (n = 2), wedge shape (n = 2), and marked T2 hypointensity (n = 2). CONCLUSION: LI-RADS categorization of focal liver observations is dependent on imaging modality. MRI results in both upgraded and downgraded categorization compared with CT in an important proportion of observations.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

AJR Am J Roentgenol

DOI

EISSN

1546-3141

Publication Date

February 2016

Volume

206

Issue

2

Start / End Page

307 / 312

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Research Design
  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Liver Neoplasms
  • Liver
  • Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
  • Humans
  • Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Corwin, M. T., Fananapazir, G., Jin, M., Lamba, R., & Bashir, M. R. (2016). Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System Categorization Between MRI and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 206(2), 307–312. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14788
Corwin, Michael T., Ghaneh Fananapazir, Michael Jin, Ramit Lamba, and Mustafa R. Bashir. “Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System Categorization Between MRI and CT.AJR Am J Roentgenol 206, no. 2 (February 2016): 307–12. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14788.
Corwin MT, Fananapazir G, Jin M, Lamba R, Bashir MR. Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System Categorization Between MRI and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Feb;206(2):307–12.
Corwin, Michael T., et al. “Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System Categorization Between MRI and CT.AJR Am J Roentgenol, vol. 206, no. 2, Feb. 2016, pp. 307–12. Pubmed, doi:10.2214/AJR.15.14788.
Corwin MT, Fananapazir G, Jin M, Lamba R, Bashir MR. Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System Categorization Between MRI and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Feb;206(2):307–312.

Published In

AJR Am J Roentgenol

DOI

EISSN

1546-3141

Publication Date

February 2016

Volume

206

Issue

2

Start / End Page

307 / 312

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Research Design
  • Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Liver Neoplasms
  • Liver
  • Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
  • Humans
  • Carcinoma, Hepatocellular