Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 3;22(1):36.
doi: 10.1186/s12880-022-00765-x.

Differentiation between combined hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of diagnostic performance between ultrasomics-based model and CEUS LI-RADS v2017

Chao-Qun Li #  1 , Xin Zheng #  1 , Huan-Ling Guo  1 , Mei-Qing Cheng  1 , Yang Huang  1 , Xiao-Yan Xie  1 , Ming-de Lu  1   2 , Ming Kuang  1   2 , Wei Wang  1 , Li-da Chen  3
Affiliations

Differentiation between combined hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of diagnostic performance between ultrasomics-based model and CEUS LI-RADS v2017

Chao-Qun Li et al. BMC Med Imaging. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The imaging findings of combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma (CHC) may be similar to those of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). CEUS LI-RADS may not perform well in distinguishing CHC from HCC. Studies have shown that radiomics has an excellent imaging analysis ability. This study aimed to establish and confirm an ultrasomics model for differentiating CHC from HCC.

Methods: Between 2004 and 2016, we retrospectively identified 53 eligible CHC patients and randomly included 106 eligible HCC patients with a ratio of HCC:CHC = 2:1, all of whom were categorized according to Contrast-Enhanced (CE) ultrasonography (US) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2017. The model based on ultrasomics features of CE US was developed in 74 HCC and 37 CHC and confirmed in 32 HCC and 16 CHC. The diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS or ultrasomics model was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.

Results: In the entire and validation cohorts, 67.0% and 81.3% of HCC cases were correctly assigned to LR-5 or LR-TIV contiguous with LR-5, and 73.6% and 87.5% of CHC cases were assigned to LR-M correctly. Up to 33.0% of HCC and 26.4% of CHC were misclassified by CE US LI-RADS. A total of 90.6% of HCC as well as 87.5% of CHC correctly diagnosed by the ultrasomics model in the validation cohort. The AUC, accuracy, sensitivity of the ultrasomics model were higher though without significant difference than those of CE US LI-RADS in the validation cohort.

Conclusion: The proposed ultrasomics model showed higher ability though the difference was not significantly different for differentiating CHC from HCC, which may be helpful in clinical diagnosis.

Keywords: Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver imaging reporting and data system; Ultrasomics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of CHC and HCC patients’ enrollment. CHC, combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; CE, contrast enhanced; LI-RADS, liver imaging reporting and data system
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Images of US and CE US for case 1. This nodule in case 1 was diagnosed as HCC histopathologically, assigned to LR-M by CE US LI-RADS with rim arterial phase hyperenhancement and portal venous phase early washout (time of washout was 52 s), while diagnosed as HCC by U model (U-score = 0.927839594). a Image of nodule on US. b–d Images of nodule in arterial, portal venous and late phase on CE US
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Images of US and CE US for case 2. This nodule in case 2 was diagnosed as CHC histopathologically, assigned to LR-5 by CE US LI-RADS with arterial phase hyperenhancement and portal venous phase mild, late washout (time of washout > 60 s), while diagnosed as CHC by U model (U-score = -0.236338237). a Image of nodule on US. b–d Images of nodule in arterial, portal venous and late phase on CE US
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. He C, Mao Y, Wang J, Song Y, Huang X, Lin X, et al. The predictive value of staging systems and inflammation scores for patients with combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma after surgical resection: a retrospective study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(7):1239–1250. doi: 10.1007/s11605-018-3756-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim SH, Park YN, Lim JH, Choi GH, Choi JS, Kim KS. Characteristics of combined hepatocelluar-cholangiocarcinoma and comparison with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40(8):976–981. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.04.016. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maximin S, Ganeshan DM, Shanbhogue AK, Dighe MK, Yeh MM, Kolokythas O, et al. Current update on combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Radiol Open. 2014;1:40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2014.07.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zuo HQ, Yan LN, Zeng Y, Yang JY, Luo HZ, Liu JW, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of 15 patients with combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2007;6(2):161–165. - PubMed
    1. Cazals-Hatem D, Rebouissou S, Bioulac-Sage P, Bluteau O, Blanché H, Franco D, et al. Clinical and molecular analysis of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas. J Hepatol. 2004;41(2):292–298. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2004.04.030. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types