&lt;p&gt;LI-RADS: a conceptual and historical review from its beginning to its recent integration into AASLD clinical practice guidance&lt;/p&gt;

Elsayes, Khaled M.; Kielar, Ania Z.; Chernyak, Victoria; Morshid, Ali; Furlan, Alessandro; Masch, William R.; Marks, Robert M.; Kamaya, Aya; Richard, K. G.; Kono, Yuko; Fowler, Kathryn J.; Tang, An; Bashir, Mustafa R.; Hecht, Elizabeth M.; Jambhekar, Kedar; Lyshchik, Andrej; Rodgers, Shuchi K.; Heiken, Jay P.; Kohli, Marc D.; Fetzer, David T.; Wilson, Stephanie R.; Kassam, Zahra; Mendiratta‐Lala, Mishal; Singal, Amit G.; Lim, Christopher; Cruite, Irene; Lee, James; Ash, Ryan; Mitchell, Donald G.; McInnes, Matthew D. F.; Sirlin, Claude B.

doi:10.2147/jhc.s186239

Cited by 103 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The webinars' content was carefully designed to cover a comprehensive list of topics crucial for practicing radiologists interested in liver imaging. Key themes included Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) [9] , liver imaging techniques, the correlation between radiological and pathological findings in the liver, and image-guided therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma. Each webinar included one topic, but some topics were discussed over several webinars.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Liver Imaging Course; Pivoting to Transform Radiology Education During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has drastically disrupted radiology in-person education. The purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of a virtual teaching method using available technology and its role in the continuity of education of practicing radiologists and trainees during the pandemic. Methods: The authors created the Online Liver Imaging Course (OLIC) that comprised 28 online comprehensive lectures delivered in realtime and on-demand over six weeks. Radiologists and radiology trainees were asked to register to attend the live sessions. At the end of the course, we conducted a 46-question survey among registrants addressing their training level, perception of virtual conferencing, and evaluation of the course content. Results: One thousand four hundred and thirty four radiologists and trainees completed interest sign up forms before the start of the course with the first webinar having the highest number of live attendees (343 people). On average, there were 89 live participants per session and 750 YouTube views per recording (as of July 9, 2020). After the end of the course, 487 attendees from 37 countries responded to the postcourse survey for an overall response rate of (33%). Approximately (63%) of participants were practicing radiologists while (37%) were either fellows or residents and rarely medical students. The overwhelming majority (97%) found the OLIC webinar series to be beneficial. Essentially all attendees felt that the webinar sessions met (43%) or exceeded (57%) their expectations. When asked about their perception of virtual conferences after attending OLIC lectures, almost all attendees (99%) enjoyed the virtual conference with a majority (61%) of the respondents who enjoyed the virtual format more than in-person conferences, while (38%) enjoyed the webinar format but preferred in-person conferences. When asked about the willingness to attend virtual webinars in the future, (84%) said that they would attend future virtual conferences even if in-person conferences resume while (15%) were unsure. Conclusion: The success of the OLIC, attributed to many factors, indicates that videoconferencing technology provides an inexpensive alternative to in-person radiology conferences. The positive responses to our postcourse survey suggest that virtual education will remain to stay. Educational institutions and scientific societies should foster such models.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online Liver Imaging Course; Pivoting to Transform Radiology Education During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, the long examination times, limited scanner access, and high exam cost associated with MRI are considered prohibitive for routine screening. Complete‐protocol diagnostic liver MRI (cMRI) as recommended by LI‐RADS can require ~40 minutes of "room time" (including patient preparation, image acquisition, room turnover) during which a series of noncontrast sequences (T 2 ‐weighted, T 1 ‐weighted in‐ and opposed‐phase, diffusion‐weighted) are performed followed by DCE sequences before and after intravenous gadolinium‐based contrast agent (GBCA) injection . Previous models have shown that a complete‐protocol diagnostic MRI is not cost‐effective for screening of the cirrhosis population .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Abbreviated‐protocol screening MRI vs. complete‐protocol diagnostic MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: An equivalence study using LI‐RADS v2018

Khatri

Pedrosa

Ananthakrishnan

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The high operational cost of MRI limits its utility for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening. Abbreviated‐protocol dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI (aMRI) may help lower cost while maintaining the high accuracy of complete‐protocol diagnostic MRI (cMRI). Purpose To compare aMRI to cMRI for HCC detection in cirrhosis patients. Study Type Cross‐sectional study. Study Population Cirrhosis patients undergoing MRI for suspected HCC. Field Strength/Sequence 1.5T and 3T; aMRI (coronal T2‐weighted, axial dynamic contrast‐enhanced T1‐weighted fat‐suppressed sequences); cMRI (aMRI sequences and unenhanced axial T2‐, T1‐, and diffusion‐weighted sequences). Assessment From each cMRI, an abbreviated exam was created by extracting only the aMRI sequences. Five radiologists independently reviewed aMRI and cMRI and assigned per‐patient screening results by the presence/absence of any actionable observation per Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System v2018 (LI‐RADS 4, 5, M, or TIV categories). Per‐patient HCC status was determined by the composite reference standard of histopathology, follow‐up imaging, consensus expert panel imaging review, and clinical follow‐up. Statistical Tests Interreader agreement between aMRI and cMRI was compared with that of cMRI and tested for interchangeability against a tolerance margin of 0.05. Per‐patient screening sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were compared between aMRI and cMRI and tested for equivalence against a tolerance margin of 0.05. Results In 93 cirrhosis patients, five radiologists recorded on average 121 liver observations. Interreader screening agreement probability (and 95% confidence interval confidence interval [CI]) was 0.914 [0.900, 0.926] between aMRI and cMRI, and 0.927 [0.908, 0.942] for cMRI; their difference was within the 0.05 margin for interchangeability. In 86 patients in whom a final HCC status could be determined, the detection sensitivity and specificity of aMRI was 0.921 [0.864, 0.956] and 0.886 [0.844, 0.918], within the 5% equivalence margin to cMRI, 0.936 [0.881, 0.965] and 0.883 [0.840, 0.915], respectively. Data Conclusion Abbreviated‐protocol screening MRI is interchangeable with, and equivalent to, complete‐protocol diagnostic MRI for per‐patient HCC detection in cirrhosis. Level of Evidence: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:415–425.

show abstract

“…Due to the heterogeneity of HCC features over hepatocarcinogenesis, the complexity of treatment of these patients, and the possibility of other malignant lesions in cirrhotic patients, a more reproducible and objective system of classification of focal hepatic lesions has become necessary in this group of high-risk patients for HCC. In this context, the LI-RADS ® (Liver Imaging Reporting And Data System) emerged with the aim of standardizing the imaging technique and terminology used to describe focal liver lesions, as well as to assist in the interpretation of results and in the standardization of reports (79)(80)(81) .…”

Section: Radiological Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Brazilian Society of Hepatology Updated Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Chagas

Mattos

Carrilho

et al. 2020

Arq. Gastroenterol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The Brazilian Society of Hepatology (SBH) published in 2015 its first recommendations about the management of HCC. Since then, new data have emerged in the literature, prompting the governing board of SBH to sponsor a single-topic meeting in August 2018 in São Paulo. All the invited experts were asked to make a systematic review of the literature reviewing the management of HCC in subjects with cirrhosis. After the meeting, all panelists gathered together for the discussion of the topics and the elaboration of updated recommendations. The text was subsequently submitted for suggestions and approval of all members of the Brazilian Society of Hepatology through its homepage. The present manuscript is the final version of the reviewed manuscript containing the recommendations of SBH.

show abstract

<p>LI-RADS: a conceptual and historical review from its beginning to its recent integration into AASLD clinical practice guidance</p>

Cited by 103 publications

References 35 publications

Online Liver Imaging Course; Pivoting to Transform Radiology Education During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Online Liver Imaging Course; Pivoting to Transform Radiology Education During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Abbreviated‐protocol screening MRI vs. complete‐protocol diagnostic MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: An equivalence study using LI‐RADS v2018

Brazilian Society of Hepatology Updated Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About