BackgroundIt can be difficult to differentiate hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from hypervascular pseudolesion (HPL) such as arteriovenous shunts.PurposeTo determine retrospectively whether double-layer detector computed tomography (DLCT) can differentiate HCC from HPL compared to gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI).Material and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 46 patients who underwent EOB-MRI and DLCT for suspected HCCs. Arterial/portal phase and hepatobiliary phase (HBP) on EOB-MRI, T2-weighted (T2W) imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), CT value, iodine-density (ID), atomic-number (Zeff), and electron-density (ED) of the lesion and liver were evaluated. The reduction rates of ID (R-ID) between each phase of the arterial/portal phase on EOB-MRI were calculated. ROC analysis was performed to determine the accuracy for differentiating HCC from HPL.ResultsThere were 55 HCCs and 14 HPLs. On DWI, 42, 11, and two HCCs showed high, slightly high, and iso intensity, respectively. However, all 14 HPLs showed iso intensity on DWI. Area under ROC curve (AUC) of DWI (0.982, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.957-1) was significantly higher than that of HBP (AUC=0.714; 95% CI=0.580-0.849; P < 0.001), R-ID (AUC=0.742, 95% CI=0.580-0.903; P = 0.004), and ED of portal phase (AUC=0.786, 95% CI=0.640-0.891; P = 0.001) in differentiating HCC and HPL. ADC (<0.001), T2W imaging (<0.001), HBP (<0.001), ED-arterial-phase (<0.001), ED-portal-phase (=0.003), ED-equilibrium-phase (=0.001), R-ID-between-arterial/equilibrium-phase (=0.032), and R-ID-between-portal/equilibrium-phase (=0.042) showed significant differences between HPL and HCC.ConclusionDWI is most useful for differentiating HCC from HPL, although ADC, T2W, HBP, R-ID, and ED may also be relatively useful to differentiate between HPLs and HCCs.

To assess the performance of computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) among patients with non-cirrhotic steatotic liver disease (SLD).

This IRB-approved, retrospective study included 119 observations from 77 adult patients (36 women, 41 men; median 64 years) who underwent liver CT or MRI from 2010 to 2023. All patients had histopathologic evidence of SLD without cirrhosis. Three board-certified abdominal radiologists blinded to tissue diagnosis and imaging follow-up assessed observations with LI-RADS. The positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inter-reader agreement were calculated.

Seventy-five observations (63%) were benign and 44 (37%) were malignant. PPV for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was 0-0% for LR-1, 0-0% for LR-2, 0-7% for LR-3, 11-20% for LR-4, 75-88% for LR-5, 0-8% for LR-M, and 50-75% for LR-TIV. For LR-5 in identifying HCC, sensitivity was 79-83%, specificity was 91-97%, and accuracy was 89-92%. For composite categories of LR-5, LR-M, or LR-TIV in identifying malignancy, sensitivity was 86-89%, specificity was 85-96%, and accuracy was 86-93%. The most common false positives for LR-5 were hepatocellular adenomas. Only 59-65% of HCCs showed non-peripheral washout at CT versus 67-83% at MRI, though nearly all had an enhancing capsule. PPV and accuracy of LR-5 for HCC did not differ by modality. Inter-reader agreement for major features ranged from 0.667 to 0.830 and was 0.766 for the final category.

Despite challenges such as the lower prevalence of non-peripheral washout at CT and overlapping imaging features between HCC and hepatocellular adenomas, LI-RADS may serve as an effective tool in assessing focal liver lesions in SLD.

LI-RADS in non-cirrhotic steatotic liver disease can effectively diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma and malignancy at computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, thereby guiding clinical management decisions and expediting patient care pathways.

Performance of LI-RADS is unknown in non-cirrhotic patients with steatotic liver disease. LI-RADS 5 category showed a high pooled specificity of 91-97% for hepatocellular carcinoma. LI-RADS can non-invasively risk stratify focal liver observations in non-cirrhotic patients with steatotic liver disease.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is estimated to be the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality and is characterized by low survival rates. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is emerging as a leading cause of HCC, whose rates are increasing, owing to the increasing prevalence of NAFLD. The pathogenesis of NAFLD-associated HCC is multifactorial: insulin resistance, obesity, diabetes and the low-grade hepatic inflammation, which characterizes NAFLD, seem to play key roles in the development and progression of HCC. The diagnosis of NAFLD-associated HCC is based on imaging in the presence of liver cirrhosis, preferably computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, but liver biopsy for histological confirmation is usually required in the absence of liver cirrhosis. Some preventive measures have been recommended for NAFLD-associated HCC, including weight loss, cessation of even moderate alcohol drinking and smoking, as well as the use of metformin, statins and aspirin. However, these preventive measures are mainly based on observational studies, thus they need validation in trials of different design before introducing in clinical practice. The treatment of NAFLD should be tailored on an individual basis and should be ideally determined by a multidisciplinary team. In the last two decades, new medications, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoints inhibitors, have improved the survival of patients with advanced HCC, but trials specifically designed for patients with NAFLD-associated HCC are scarce. The aim of this review was to overview evidence on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD-associated HCC, then to comment on imaging tools for its appropriate screening and diagnosis, and finally to critically summarize the currently available options for its prevention and treatment.

To evaluate whether tumor extracellular volume fraction (fECV) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) aids in the differentiation between intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

In this retrospective study, 113 patients with pathologically confirmed ICC (n = 39) or HCC (n = 74) who had undergone preoperative contrast-enhanced CT were enrolled. Enhancement values of the tumor (Etumor) and aorta (Eaorta) were obtained in the precontrast and equilibrium phase CT images. fECV was calculated using the following equation: fECV [%] = Etumor/Eaorta × (100 - hematocrit [%]). fECV values were compared between the ICC and HCC groups using Welch's t-test. The diagnostic performance of fECV for differentiating ICC and HCC was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. fECV and the CT imaging features of tumors were evaluated by two radiologists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors predicting a diagnosis of ICC.

Mean fECV was significantly higher in ICCs (43.8% ± 13.2%) than that in HCCs (31.6% ± 9.0%, p < 0.001). The area under the curve for differentiating ICC from HCC was 0.763 when the cutoff value of fECV was 41.5%. The multivariate analysis identified fECV (unit OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01-1.21; p < 0.05), peripheral rim enhancement during the arterial phase (OR: 17.0; 95% CI: 1.29-225; p < 0.05), and absence of washout pattern (OR: 235; 95% CI: 14.03-3933; p < 0.001) as independent CT features for differentiating between the two tumor types.

A high value of fECV, peripheral rim enhancement during the arterial phase, and absence of washout pattern were independent factors in the differentiation of ICC from HCC.

To verify the hypothesis that extracellular volume fraction (ECV) and precontrast CT density are the main determinants of washout of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at the equilibrium phase CT.

Between 2018 and 2020, patients with surgically resected HCC were recruited who had undergone preoperative 4-phase CT. Those larger than 6 cm were excluded to minimize the possibility of intratumoral hemorrhage or degeneration. Two radiologists reviewed the whole images in consensus and divided cases into washout positive and negative groups. Washout positive group at the equilibrium phase was defined as "HCC showing relatively low density as compared to the surrounding background liver (BGL), irrespective of the presence of early enhancement or fibrous capsule". Several clinico-pathological and radiological features, including ECV and precontrast CT density, were correlated to the presence of washout, using uni- and multi-variable analyses.

27 HCC in 24 patients met the inclusion criteria. 22 (82%) and five HCC belonged to washout positive and negative groups, respectively. Univariable analysis revealed ECV of HCC and BGL, ECV difference between HCC and BGL, and presence of fibrous capsule on the equilibrium phase CT were the significant factors. Multivariable analysis showed ECV of HCC and BGL, and precontrast CT density of BGL, were the independently significant factors related to washout, suggesting washout is more likely observed with lower HCC ECV, higher BGL ECV, and higher BGL precontrast CT density.

Major determinants of washout of HCC may be ECV of HCC and BGL, and precontrast CT density of BGL.