Modified LR-5 criteria based on gadoxetic acid can improve the sensitivity in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma

doi:10.4329/wjr.v17.i3.103822

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 17, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (163)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-3) series, Tables (1-4) series.

Item

Count

PDF

HTML

Figures (1-3)

Tables (1-4)

Sum=102

Featured Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

Download

Sum=46

Publishing Process of This Article

Item

Count

Browse

Download

Sum=5

Mar 28, 2025 (publication date) through Mar 30, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Radiology

ISSN

1949-8470

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Radiol. Mar 28, 2025; 17(3): 103822
Published online Mar 28, 2025. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v17.i3.103822

Table 3 Diagnostic performance and logistic regression analyses of major features and ancillary features favoring malignancy in Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma

Features	Diagnostic performance (%)		Univariable analysis		Multivariable analysis
Features	Sensitivity	Specificity	OR (95%CI)	P value	OR (95%CI)	P value
Major features
Size of lesions (≤ 20 mm; > 20 mm)	73.3 (121/165)	40.5 (32/79)	1.872(1.063-3.299)	0.029^a	0.969 (0.281-3.339)	0.960
Nonrim APHE	88.5 (146/165)	49.4 (39/79)	7.492(3.910-14.357)	0.000^a	18.913 (5.437-65.788)	0.000^b
Nonperipheral “washout”	58.8 (97/165)	88.6 (70/79)	11.095 (5.188-23.727)	0.000^a	3.443 (0.920-12.887)	0.006^b
Threshold growth	1.2 (2/165)	96.2 (76/79)	0.311(0.051-1.899)	0.395	-	-
Enhancing “capsule”	49.7 (82/165)	94.9 (75/79)	18.524 (6.475-52.991)	0.000^a	7.126 (1.209-42.004)	0.030^b
Malignant ancillary features favoring HCC
Mosaic architecture	51.5 (85/165)	74.7 (59/79)	3.134 (1.734-5.665)	0.000^a	0.687 (0.188-2.516)	0.571
Nonenhancing “capsule”	4.2 (7/165)	96.2 (76/79)	1.122 (0.282-4.461)	1.000	-	-
Blood products in mass	38.2 (63/165)	91.1 (73/79)	6.353 (2.751-14.673)	0.000^a	1.833 (0.385-8.730)	0.446
Fat in mass, more than adjacent liver	30.3 (50/165)	89.9 (71/79)	3.859 (1.729-8.612)	0.000^a	9.846 (2.042-47.467)	0.004^b
Nodule-in-nodule	30.3 (50/165)	93.7 (74/79)	6.435 (2.453-16.883)	0.000^a	0.995 (0.200-4.949)	0.995
Favoring malignancy in general
Corona enhancement	15.2 (25/165)	84.8 (67/79)	0.997 (0.472-2.105)	0.994	-	-
Restricted diffusion	86.7 (143/165)	57.0 (45/79)	8.603 (4.571-16.190)	0.000^a	0.697 (0.142-3.432)	0.658
Mild-moderate T2 hyperintensity	95.2 (157/165)	86.3 (50/79)	33.836 (14.535-78.766)	0.000^a	13.516 (2.568-71.131)	0.002^b
Fat sparing in solid mass	4.8 (8/165)	98.7 (78/79)	3.975 (0.488-32.344)	0.305	-	-
Iron sparing in solid mass	6.1 (10/165)	96.2 (76/79)	1.634 (0.437-6.113)	0.666	-
Transitional phase hypointensity	93.9 (155/165)	68.4 (54/79)	33.480 (15.103-74.219)	0.000^a	43.403 (10.479-179.770)	0.000^b
Hepatobiliary phase hypointensity	93.3 (154/165)	32.9 (26/79)	6.868 (3.177-14.848)	0.000^a	0.999 (0.230-4.344)	0.999
Subthreshold growth	5.5 (9/165)	94.9 (75/79)	1.082 (0.323-3.626)	1.000	-	-

^aP < 0.2 in univariable analysis.

^bP < 0.05 in multivariable analysis.

OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence intervals; APHE: Arterial phase hyperenhancement; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma.

Citation: Song Y, Zhang YY, Yu Q, Ma R, Xiao Y, Shen JK, Wei CG. Modified LR-5 criteria based on gadoxetic acid can improve the sensitivity in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Radiol 2025; 17(3): 103822
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v17/i3/103822.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v17.i3.103822