The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) is composed of four individual algorithms intended to standardize the lexicon, as well as reporting and care, in patients with or at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma in the context of surveillance with US; diagnosis with CT, MRI, or contrast material-enhanced US; and assessment of treatment response with CT or MRI. This report provides a broad overview of LI-RADS, including its historic development, relationship to other imaging guidelines, composition, aims, and future directions. In addition, readers will understand the motivation for and key components of the 2018 update.

Background Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma utilizes the CCL2/CCR2 chemokine axis to facilitate recruitment of tumor associated macrophages to sculpt an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. This pathway has prognostic implications in pancreas cancer, and blockade of CCR2 restores anti-tumor immunity in pre-clinical models. This provided the rationale for a clinical study in pancreatic adenocarcinoma to determine the safety and recommended phase 2 oral dosage of the CCR2 inhibitor PF-04136309 in combination with chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX). Methods In this single-center, open label, phase Ib clinical trial patients age ≥ 18 years with treatment naïve borderline resectable or locally advanced, biopsy-proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status <2, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Version 1.1, and normal end organ function were eligible for enrollment. FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2; irinotecan, 180 mg/m2; leucovorin, 400 mg/m2, and bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 followed by 2,400 mg/m2 46 hour continuous infusion) was administered every 2 weeks for a total of six treatment cycles. To determine the recommended phase 2 dose, PF-04136309 was orally administered at a starting dose of 500 mg twice daily in a standard 3+3 dose de-escalation design with an expansion phase planned at the recommended phase 2 dose. Both FOLFIRINOX and PF-04136309 were simultaneously initiated with a total treatment duration of 3 months. The primary endpoints were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose and toxicity of PF-04136309 in combination with FOLFIRINOX. All patients in the dose de-escalation and expansion phase received the recommended phase 2 dose of PF-04136309 were combined for assessment of treatment toxicity by an intention to treat analysis. For tissue specimen comparison in corollary studies, a group of patients receiving FOLFIRINOX alone were enrolled and evaluated for treatment related toxicity. This study has been completed and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT01413022. Results From April 19th, 2012 through November 12th, 2014 a total of 47 patients were enrolled. The dose de-escalation group (n=6) received PF-04136309 at 500 mg administered orally twice daily. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed and this was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. The expansion phase cohort (n=33) and patients in the dose de-escalation arm receiving PF-04136309 at the recommended phase 2 dose (n=6) were combined for assessment of treatment related toxicity. No therapy related deaths occurring during the study interval. Early termination as the result of treatment related toxicity occurred in 2 of the 39 patients (5%) in the FOLFIRINOX plus PF-04136309 arm. Grade ≥3 adverse events reported in ≥10% of the patients receiving PF-04136309 included neutropenia in 27 patients (69%), febrile neutropenia in 7 patients (18%), lymphopenia in 4 patients (10%), diarrhea in 6 patients (15%), and hypokalemia in 7 patients (18%). Among...

It is recommended that diagnosis is based on routine histopathology with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E); immunostains are supportive, but not essential for diagnosis. (Hepatology 2018;68:113-126).

No abstract

1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:338-353.

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.q RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.An Tang REVIEW: LI-RADS Major Features for Hepatocellular Carcinoma DiagnosisTang et al selection of five major features was based on expert opinion, the literature review was performed to ensure that imaging-based diagnostic criteria were able to achieve near-100% specificity for the noninvasive diagnosis of HCC. This review focused on the evidence supporting the inclusion of imaging features and did not attempt to gather evidence on the composition of the LI-RADS diagnostic algorithm and probability of HCC for different combinations of criteria (other than the hallmark combination of APHE and washout appearance) in the LI-RADS diagnostic table.Each subgroup was charged with developing key research questions and then critically reviewing the literature to answer research questions thematically related to its assigned topic. Search StrategyThe PICO (patient population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) format frequently used in structured reviews does not lend itself well to studies of diagnostic performance. Rather than using PICO-style questions to guide the searches, therefore, the subgroups formulated free-form questions in advance with feedback from the other subgroups. A total of 10 questions were formulated under the framework and with the understanding that their answers would inform recommendations for removing or continuing to include the corresponding LI-RADS features. After the questions were formulated, each subgroup searched the PubMed develop a standardized Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for interpretation, reporting, and data collection of imaging studies in patients at risk for developing HCC (1). The committee was composed mainly of diagnostic radiologists, but also hepatologists, surgeons, patho...

No abstract

Background & Aims We assessed the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) proton density fat fraction (PDFF) in grading hepatic steatosis and change in hepatic steatosis in adults with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in a multi-center study, using central histology as reference. Methods We collected data from 113 adults with NASH participating in a multi-center, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial to compare the efficacy cross-sectionally and longitudinally of obeticholic acid vs placebo. Hepatic steatosis was assessed at baseline and after 72 weeks of obeticholic acid or placebo by liver biopsy and MRI (scanners from different manufacturers, at 1.5T or 3T). We compared steatosis estimates by PDFF vs histology. Histologic steatosis grade was scored in consensus by a pathology committee. Cross-validated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed. Results At baseline, 34% of subjects had steatosis grade 0 or 1, 39% had steatosis grade 2, and 27% had steatosis grade 3; corresponding mean PDFF values were 9.8%±3.7%, 18.1%±4.3%, and 30.1%±8.1%. PDFF classified steatosis grade 0–1 vs 2–3 with an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91–0.98), and grade 0–2 vs grade 3 steatosis with an AUROC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–0.99). PDFF cut-off values at 90% specificity were 16.3% for grades 2–3 and 21.7% for grade 3, with corresponding sensitivities of 83% and 84%. After 72 weeks' of obeticholic vs. placebo, 42% of subjects had a reduced steatosis grade (mean reduction in PDFF from baseline of 7.4%±8.7%), 49% had no change in steatosis grade (mean increase in PDFF from baseline of 0.3%±6.3%), and 9% had an increased steatosis grade (mean increase in PDFF from baseline of 7.7%±6.0%). PDFF change identified subjects with reduced steatosis grade with an AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71–0.91) and increased steatosis grade with an AUROC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63–0.99). A PDFF reduction of 5.15% identified subjects with reduced steatosis grade with 90% specificity and 58% sensitivity, whereas a PDFF increase of 5.6% identified those with increased steatosis grade with 90% specificity and 57% sensitivity. Conclusions Based on data from a phase 2 randomized controlled trial of adults with NASH, PDFF estimated by MRI scanners of different field strength and at different sites, accurately classifies grades and changes in hepatic steatosis when histologic analysis of biopsies is used as a reference.