The adoption of LI-RADS: a survey of non-academic radiologists

Authors

Robert M. Marks, Department of Radiology, Naval Medical Center San Diego, 34800 Bob Wilson Dr. Suite 204, San Diego, CA, 92134, USA; Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USAFollow
Alice Fung, Department of Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
Irene Cruite, Inland Imaging, Spokane, WA, USA
Kasina Blevins, Radiology Partners Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Tasneem Lalani, Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Natally Horvat, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
Zenon Protopapas, New Haven Radiology Associates, New Haven, CT, USA
Humaira Chaudhry, Department of Radiology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA
Bijan Bijan, Sutter Medical Group Sacramento, Sacramento, USA; Department of Radiology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA
Masoud Shiehmorteza, Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
Pankaj Nepal, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
An Tang, Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier de L'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-1-2023

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.

Publication Title

Abdom Radiol (NY)

ISSN

2366-0058

Volume

48

Issue

8

First Page

2514

Last Page

2524

DOI

10.1007/s00261-023-03951-9

Recommended Citation

Marks RM, Fung A, Cruite I, Blevins K, Lalani T, Horvat N, Protopapas Z, Chaudhry H, Bijan B, Shiehmorteza M, Nepal P, Tang A. The adoption of LI-RADS: a survey of non-academic radiologists. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023 Aug;48(8):2514-2524. doi: 10.1007/s00261-023-03951-9. Epub 2023 May 26. PMID: 37233747.