Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 21, 2022; 28(27): 3488-3502
Published online Jul 21, 2022. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3488
Table 1 Characteristics of patients and hepatic nodules
Item
Number or range
Nodules, n511
Patients, n269
Males, n (%)219 (81.4)
Females, n (%)50 (18.6)
Median age at first nodule (IQR; range)69 years (61-75; 43-88)
Males (IQR; range)67 years (59-74; 43-88)
Females (IQR; range)74.5 years (71-78; 59-85)
Hepatic cirrhosis aetiology (n)
Chronic HCV infection, n (%)129 (48)
Alcohol abuse, n (%)45 (16.7)
Chronic HBV infection, n (%)24 (8.9)
Chronic HCV infection + alcohol abuse, n (%)21 (7.8)
Chronic HBV + HCV infection, n (%)8 (3)
NASH, n (%)6 (2.2)
ChronicHBV infection + alcohol abuse, n (%)5 (1.9)
Other aetiologies, n (%)6 (2.2)
Unknown aetiology, n (%)25 (9.3)
Median diameter of nodules (IQR; range)24 mm (16-36; 5-200)
Table 2 Rates of different conclusive diagnoses for each Contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System class
Conclusive diagnosis
%
HCC
ICC
Metastasis
Other malignancy
Benign lesion
Total
CEUS LI-RADS classCEUS LR-M1121311377.2
CEUS LR-5286000228856.4
CEUS LR-4111000311422.3
CEUS LR-315202476612.9
CEUS LR-20000551.0
CEUS LR-10000110.2
Total423233359511100.0
%82.84.50.60.611.5100.0
Table 3 Rates of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in different Contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System classes
CEUS LI-RADS class
HCC
ICC
LR-315/66 (22.7%)2/66 (3%)
LR-4111/114 (97.4%)0/114 (0%)
LR-5286/288 (99.3%)0/288 (0%)
LR-M11/37 (29.7%)21/37 (56.8%)
Table 4 Rates of different contrast-enhanced ultrasound patterns in arterial phase
Arterial phase CEUS pattern
Nodules, n (%)
Homogeneous hyperenhancement404 (79.1)
Rim hyperenhancement23 (4.5)
Globular hyperenhancement1 (0.2)
Isoenhancement65 (12.7)
Hypoenhancement18 (3.5)
Table 5 Rate of different portal and late phase contrast-enhanced ultrasound patterns
Portal and late phase CEUS pattern
Nodules, n (%)
Late and mild washout310 (60.7%)
Early/marked washout27 (5.3%)
Isoenhancement157 (30.7%)
Hypoenhancement15 (2.9%)
Hyperenhancement2 (0.4%)
Table 6 Diagnostic statistics of different contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System classes for different diagnosis
Tested association
Sensitivity (%)          
Specificity (%)          
PPV (%)                
NPV (%)                
Diagnostic accuracy (%)
Youden’s index
Odds Ratio
P value
CEUS LR M-ICC91.3 (72.0-98.9)96.7 (94.7-98.1)56.8 (39.5-72.9)99.6 (98.5-99.9)96.5 (94.5-97.9)0.880309.75< 0.001
CEUS LR 5-HCC67.6 (62.9-72.1)97.7 (92.0-99.7)99.3 (97.5-99.9)38.6 (32.1-45.3)72.8 (68.7-76.6)0.65389.80< 0.001
CEUS LR 4-HCC26.2 (22.1-30.7)96.6 (90.4-99.3)97.4 (92.5-99.5)21.4 (17.5-25.8)38.4 (34.1-42.7)0.22810.10< 0.001
CEUS LR 4/5-HCC93.9 (91.1-95.9)94.3 (87.2-98.1)98.8 (97.1-99.6)76.1 (67.0-83.8)93.9 (91.5-95.8)0.882253.50< 0.001
CEUS LR 3-benign lesion79.7 (67.2-89.0)95.8 (93.5-97.5)71.2 (58.7-81.7)97.3 (95.3-98.6)93.9 (91.5-95.8)0.75589.26< 0.001
CEUS LR-3-malignancy4.2 (2.5-6.5)20.3 (11.0-32.8)28.8 (18.3-41.3)2.7 (1.4-4.7)6.0 (4.2-8.5)-0.7550.01< 0.001
CEUS LR-3-iso-iso-malignancy5.3 (0.1-26.0)19.1 (9.1-33.3)2.6 (0.1-13.5)33.3 (16.5-54.0)15.2 (7.5-26.1)-0.7560.01< 0.001
CEUS LR-3-hypo-hypo-malignancy57.9 (33.5-79.7)91.5 (79.6-97.6)73.3 (44.9-92.2)84.3 (71.4-93.0)81.8 (70.4-90.2)0.49414.78< 0.001
Table 7 Classification of nodules for LR-3, LR-4, and LR-5 classes, reported in yellow, orange, and red, respectively
Nodule sizeNo APHE1
APHE1
Total
< 20 mm
≥ 20 mm
< 10 mm
≥ 10 mm
No washout of any type37 (4)21 (5)1 (1)106 (104)165
Late and mild washout7 (5)8 (7)0288 (286)303
Total44291394468

  • Citation: Vidili G, Arru M, Solinas G, Calvisi DF, Meloni P, Sauchella A, Turilli D, Fabio C, Cossu A, Madeddu G, Babudieri S, Zocco MA, Iannetti G, Di Lembo E, Delitala AP, Manetti R. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: Lights and shadows in hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocellular carcinoma diagnosis. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28(27): 3488-3502
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v28/i27/3488.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i27.3488