Search

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.

ObjectivesThe 9th International Forum for Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was held in Singapore in September 2019, bringing together radiologists and allied specialists to discuss the latest developments in and formulate consensus statements for liver MRI, including the applications of gadoxetic acid-enhanced imaging.MethodsAs at previous Liver Forums, the meeting was held over 2 days. Presentations by the faculty on days 1 and 2 and breakout group discussions on day 1 were followed by delegate voting on consensus statements presented on day 2. Presentations and discussions centered on two main meeting themes relating to the use of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in primary liver cancer and metastatic liver disease.Results and conclusionsGadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI offers the ability to monitor response to systemic therapy and to assist in pre-surgical/pre-interventional planning in liver metastases. In hepatocellular carcinoma, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI provides precise staging information for accurate treatment decision-making and follow-up post therapy. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI also has potential, currently investigational, indications for the functional assessment of the liver and the biliary system. Additional voting sessions at the Liver Forum debated the role of multidisciplinary care in the management of patients with liver disease, evidence to support the use of abbreviated imaging protocols, and the importance of standardizing nomenclature in international guidelines in order to increase the sharing of scientific data and improve the communication between centers.Key points• Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is the preferred imaging method for pre-surgical or pre-interventional planning for liver metastases after systemic therapy. • Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI provides accurate staging of HCC before and after treatment with locoregional/biologic therapies. • Abbreviated protocols for gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI offer potential time and cost savings, but more evidence is necessary. The use of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for the assessment of liver and biliary function is under active investigation.

Purpose To determine in a large multicenter multireader setting the interreader reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2014 categories, the major imaging features seen with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and the potential effect of reader demographics on agreement with a preselected nonconsecutive image set. Materials and Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained, and patient consent was waived for this retrospective study. Ten image sets, comprising 38-40 unique studies (equal number of CT and MR imaging studies, uniformly distributed LI-RADS categories), were randomly allocated to readers. Images were acquired in unenhanced and standard contrast material-enhanced phases, with observation diameter and growth data provided. Readers completed a demographic survey, assigned LI-RADS version 2014 categories, and assessed major features. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) assessed with mixed-model regression analyses was the metric for interreader reliability of assigning categories and major features. Results A total of 113 readers evaluated 380 image sets. ICC of final LI-RADS category assignment was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61, 0.71) for CT and 0.73 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.77) for MR imaging. ICC was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.90) for arterial phase hyperenhancement, 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.88) for washout appearance, and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.87) for capsule appearance. ICC was not significantly affected by liver expertise, LI-RADS familiarity, or years of postresidency practice (ICC range, 0.69-0.70; ICC difference, 0.003-0.01 [95% CI: -0.003 to -0.01, 0.004-0.02]. ICC was borderline higher for private practice readers than for academic readers (ICC difference, 0.009; 95% CI: 0.000, 0.021). Conclusion ICC is good for final LI-RADS categorization and high for major feature characterization, with minimal reader demographic effect. Of note, our results using selected image sets from nonconsecutive examinations are not necessarily comparable with those of prior studies that used consecutive examination series. © RSNA, 2017.