Adrija Mamidipalli

Imaging Outcomes of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2014 Category 2, 3, and 4 Observations Detected at CT and MR Imaging

Purpose To determine the proportion of untreated Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2014 category 2, 3, and 4 observations that progress, remain stable, or decrease in category and to compare the cumulative incidence of progression in category. Materials and Methods In this retrospective, longitudinal, single-center, HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study, 157 patients (86 men and 71 women; mean age ± standard deviation, 59.0 years ± 9.7) underwent two or more multiphasic computed tomographic (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examinations for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance, with the first examination in 2011 or 2012. One radiologist reviewed baseline and follow-up CT and MR images (mean follow-up, 614 days). LI-RADS categories issued in the clinical reports by using version 1.0 or version 2013 were converted to version 2014 retrospectively; category modifications were verified with another radiologist. For index category LR-2, LR-3, and LR-4 observations, the proportions that progressed, remained stable, or decreased in category were calculated. Cumulative incidence curves for progression were compared according to baseline LI-RADS category (by using log-rank tests). Results All 63 index LR-2 observations remained stable or decreased in category. Among 166 index LR-3 observations, seven (4%) progressed to LR-5, and eight (5%) progressed to LR-4. Among 52 index LR-4 observations, 20 (38%) progressed to a malignant category. The cumulative incidence of progression to a malignant category was higher for index LR-4 observations than for index LR-3 or LR-2 observations (each P < .001) but was not different between LR-3 and LR-2 observations (P = .155). The cumulative incidence of progression to at least category LR-4 was trend-level higher for index LR-3 observations than for LR-2 observations (P = .0502). Conclusion Observations classified according to LI-RADS version 2014 categories are associated with different imaging outcomes. (©) RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Evidence Supporting LI-RADS Major Features for CT- and MR Imaging–based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) standardizes the interpretation, reporting, and data collection for imaging examinations in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It assigns category codes reflecting relative probability of HCC to imaging-detected liver observations based on major and ancillary imaging features. LI-RADS also includes imaging features suggesting malignancy other than HCC. Supported and endorsed by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the system has been developed by a committee of radiologists, hepatologists, pathologists, surgeons, lexicon experts, and ACR staff, with input from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing. Development of LI-RADS has been based on literature review, expert opinion, rounds of testing and iteration, and feedback from users. This article summarizes and assesses the quality of evidence supporting each LI-RADS major feature for diagnosis of HCC, as well as of the LI-RADS imaging features suggesting malignancy other than HCC. Based on the evidence, recommendations are provided for or against their continued inclusion in LI-RADS.

MRI proton density fat fraction is robust across the biologically plausible range of triglyceride spectra in adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) estimation requires spectral modeling of the hepatic triglyceride (TG) signal. Deviations in the TG spectrum may occur, leading to bias in PDFF quantification.

Cross‐sectional correlation between hepatic R2* and proton density fat fraction (PDFF) in children with hepatic steatosis

To determine the relationship between hepatic proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and R2* in vivo.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: Review of Ancillary Imaging Features

Author(s): Cruite, Irene; Santillan, Cynthia; Mamidipalli, Adrija; Shah, Amol; Tang, An; Sirlin, Claude B

Hepatic R2* is more strongly associated with proton density fat fraction than histologic liver iron scores in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: R2* Is More Influenced by PDFF Than Liver Iron

The liver R2* value is widely used as a measure of liver iron but may be confounded by the presence of hepatic steatosis and other covariates.

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: Review of Major Imaging Features☆☆☆

Author(s): Cruite, Irene; Tang, An; Mamidipalli, Adrija; Shah, Amol; Santillan, Cynthia; Sirlin, Claude B