Non-invasive imaging criteria for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in non-cirrhotic patients with chronic hepatitis B.
AASLD, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
EASL, European Association for the Study of the Liver
FIB-4, fibrosis-4
GBCA, gadolinium-based contrast administration
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma
LI-RADS
LI-RADS, Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System
NPV, negative predictive value
PPV, positive predictive value
TIV, tumor-in-vein
computed tomography
liver neoplasms
magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology
ISSN: 2589-5559
Titre abrégé: JHEP Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101761237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
12
01
2021
revised:
25
08
2021
accepted:
30
08
2021
entrez:
29
10
2021
pubmed:
30
10
2021
medline:
30
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Criteria defined by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) enable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis based on imaging in cirrhosis. Non-cirrhotic patients require biopsy given the lower pre-test probability of HCC. The objective of our study was to assess the performance of EASL and LI-RADS criteria for the diagnosis of HCC in non-cirrhotic patients with chronic HBV infection. This was a cross-sectional study performed at a referral center. We included all patients with HBV without cirrhosis with focal liver lesions who underwent contrast-enhanced CT or MRI at our clinic between 2005-2018. Studies were reviewed by 2 radiologists blinded to the diagnosis. We included 280 patients, median age was 56.8 (IQR 48.2-65.45) years and 223 (80%) were male. In 191 (79%) cases the lesion was found as a result of screening. Cirrhosis was excluded based on pathology in 252 (90%) cases. We assessed 338 nodules: 257 (76%) HCC, 40 (12%) non-HCC malignant lesions, and 41 (12%) benign lesions. EASL criteria and LR-5/LR-tumor-in-vein (TIV) categories had a 100% agreement in categorizing lesions as HCC, and 226 nodules (67%) were classified as HCCs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 82.1 (76.9-86.6), 81.5 (71.3-89.2), 93.4 (89.3-96.2), and 58.9 (49.2-68.1), respectively. When the pre-test probability of HCC is >70%, estimated as a PAGE-B score above 9, and EASL or LR-5/LR-TIV criteria are met, post-test probability would be >90%. EASL criteria and LR-5/LR-TIV categories show a positive predictive value in patients with HBV without cirrhosis that is comparable to that seen in patients with cirrhosis. These criteria can be used when the pre-test probability of HCC is >70%. Current guidelines recommend performing a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of presumed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients without cirrhosis. We showed that specific imaging criteria had a 100% agreement for categorizing lesions as HCC, with a positive predictive value of 93.4%. These imaging criteria could be used to diagnose HCC in HBV patients without cirrhosis with a pre-test probability of HCC of ≥70%, avoiding the need for a liver biopsy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Criteria defined by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) enable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis based on imaging in cirrhosis. Non-cirrhotic patients require biopsy given the lower pre-test probability of HCC. The objective of our study was to assess the performance of EASL and LI-RADS criteria for the diagnosis of HCC in non-cirrhotic patients with chronic HBV infection.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a cross-sectional study performed at a referral center. We included all patients with HBV without cirrhosis with focal liver lesions who underwent contrast-enhanced CT or MRI at our clinic between 2005-2018. Studies were reviewed by 2 radiologists blinded to the diagnosis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 280 patients, median age was 56.8 (IQR 48.2-65.45) years and 223 (80%) were male. In 191 (79%) cases the lesion was found as a result of screening. Cirrhosis was excluded based on pathology in 252 (90%) cases. We assessed 338 nodules: 257 (76%) HCC, 40 (12%) non-HCC malignant lesions, and 41 (12%) benign lesions. EASL criteria and LR-5/LR-tumor-in-vein (TIV) categories had a 100% agreement in categorizing lesions as HCC, and 226 nodules (67%) were classified as HCCs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 82.1 (76.9-86.6), 81.5 (71.3-89.2), 93.4 (89.3-96.2), and 58.9 (49.2-68.1), respectively. When the pre-test probability of HCC is >70%, estimated as a PAGE-B score above 9, and EASL or LR-5/LR-TIV criteria are met, post-test probability would be >90%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
EASL criteria and LR-5/LR-TIV categories show a positive predictive value in patients with HBV without cirrhosis that is comparable to that seen in patients with cirrhosis. These criteria can be used when the pre-test probability of HCC is >70%.
LAY SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend performing a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of presumed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients without cirrhosis. We showed that specific imaging criteria had a 100% agreement for categorizing lesions as HCC, with a positive predictive value of 93.4%. These imaging criteria could be used to diagnose HCC in HBV patients without cirrhosis with a pre-test probability of HCC of ≥70%, avoiding the need for a liver biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34712933
doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2021.100364
pii: S2589-5559(21)00140-3
pmc: PMC8531662
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100364Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 26813
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
J.M.L. receives research support from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Eisai Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Ipsen; and consulting fees from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Eisai Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celsion Corporation, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, Roche, Genentech, Glycotest, Nucleix, Can-Fite Biopharma and AstraZeneca. Incluye mis disclosures: AV has received consulting fees from Guidepoint, Fujifilm, Boehringer-Ingelheim, FirstWord, and MHLife Sciences; advisory board fees from Exact Sciences, Nucleix, Gilead and NGM Pharmaceuticals; and research support from Eisai. CMV, SL, KL, SA, MS, and JGA have nothing to disclose. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details.
Références
Radiology. 2018 Dec;289(3):816-830
pubmed: 30251931
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Feb;9(2):168-74
pubmed: 21029788
Gut. 2021 Feb;70(2):401-407
pubmed: 32398224
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Apr;26(4):745-50
pubmed: 21418303
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):3020-3031
pubmed: 29374320
Abdom Imaging. 2011 Jun;36(3):264-72
pubmed: 21267562
J Hepatol. 2018 Jul;69(1):182-236
pubmed: 29628281
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Aug;18(9):2091-2100.e7
pubmed: 31843599
J Hepatol. 2016 Apr;64(4):800-6
pubmed: 26678008
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Mar;7(3):335-8
pubmed: 19138761
Korean J Radiol. 2021 Jul;22(7):1066-1076
pubmed: 33739633
Hepatogastroenterology. 1998 Aug;45 Suppl 3:1214-20
pubmed: 9730377
Gastroenterology. 2019 Mar;156(4):976-986
pubmed: 30445016
Eur J Radiol. 2021 May;138:109651
pubmed: 33740627
Hepatology. 2015 Jan;61(1):292-302
pubmed: 25132233
Liver Int. 2011 Nov;31(10):1468-76
pubmed: 21745284
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv238-iv255
pubmed: 30285213
Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68(2):723-750
pubmed: 29624699
Hepatology. 2018 Jan;67(1):401-421
pubmed: 28859233
Liver Int. 2017 Oct;37(10):1515-1525
pubmed: 28346737
N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 11;380(15):1450-1462
pubmed: 30970190
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Dec;21(12):1697-1706
pubmed: 31262487
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jul;24(7):1446-54
pubmed: 24770466
Radiology. 1999 Jan;210(1):75-9
pubmed: 9885590