The adoption of LI-RADS: A survey of non-academic radiologists Journal Article


Authors: Marks, R. M.; Fung, A.; Cruite, I.; Blevins, K.; Lalani, T.; Horvat, N.; Protopapas, Z.; Chaudhry, H.; Bijan, B.; Shiehmorteza, M.; Nepal, P.; Tang, A.
Article Title: The adoption of LI-RADS: A survey of non-academic radiologists
Abstract: Purpose: To understand the practice and determinants of non-academic radiologists regarding LI-RADS and the four current LI-RADS algorithms: CT/MRI, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), ultrasound (US), and CT/MRI Treatment Response. Materials and methods: Seven themes were covered in this international survey, as follows: (1) demographics of participants and sub-specialty, (2) HCC practice and interpretation, (3) reporting practice, (4) screening and surveillance, (5) HCC imaging diagnosis, (6) treatment response, and (7) CT and MRI technique. Results: Of the 232 participants, 69.4% were from the United States, 25.0% from Canada, and 5.6% from other countries and 45.9% were abdominal/body imagers. During their radiology training or fellowship, no formal HCC diagnostic system was used by 48.7% and LI-RADS was used by 44.4% of participants. In their current practice, 73.6% used LI-RADS, 24.7% no formal system, 6.5% UNOS-OPTN, and 1.3% AASLD. Barriers to LI-RADS adoption included lack of familiarity (25.1%), not used by referring clinicians (21.6%), perceived complexity (14.5%), and personal preference (5.3%). The US LI-RADS algorithm was used routinely by 9.9% of respondents and CEUS LI-RADS was used by 3.9% of the respondents. The LI-RADS treatment response algorithm was used by 43.5% of the respondents. 60.9% of respondents thought that webinars/workshops on LI-RADS Technical Recommendations would help them implement these recommendations in their practice. Conclusion: A majority of the non-academic radiologists surveyed use the LI-RADS CT/MR algorithm for HCC diagnosis, while nearly half use the LI-RADS TR algorithm for assessment of treatment response. Less than 10% of the participants routinely use the LI-RADS US and CEUS algorithms. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.] © 2023, This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Keywords: treatment response; retrospective studies; liver cell carcinoma; carcinoma, hepatocellular; liver neoplasms; united states; nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; sensitivity and specificity; clinical practice; cancer screening; health survey; tomography, x-ray computed; retrospective study; standardization; radiologist; medical education; algorithm; total quality management; liver tumor; diagnosis; imaging; contrast medium; contrast media; canada; diffusion weighted imaging; disease surveillance; demographics; contrast-enhanced ultrasound; procedures; clinician; radiologists; gadoxetic acid; gadobenate dimeglumine; humans; human; article; x-ray computed tomography; hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc); li-rads; liver imaging reporting and data system; t2 weighted imaging; webinar
Journal Title: Abdominal Radiology
Volume: 48
Issue: 8
ISSN: 2366-004X
Publisher: Springer  
Date Published: 2023-08-01
Start Page: 2514
End Page: 2524
Language: English
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-023-03951-9
PUBMED: 37233747
PROVIDER: scopus
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Natally Horvat
    101 Horvat