Abstract:PURPOSE:To investigate the use of stiffness value and stiffness ratio (ratio of lesion to background liver parenchyma values) to discriminate malignant from benign focal liver lesions by using histologic results as the reference standard.MATERIALS AND METHODS:This study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained. Three hundred seventy-three patients with focal liver lesions proven at histologic examination underwent measurement of liver stiffness with elastography point quantification. First, stiffness values in two regions of the background liver parenchyma (at 0.5-2 cm and >2 cm from the lesion periphery) near 163 hepatocellular carcinomas were analyzed to determine a reference background liver for calculating the stiffness ratio. Second, the use of the lesion stiffness value and the stiffness ratio for prediction of liver malignancy was investigated in a cohort of patients with 58 benign and 201 malignant lesions. Results were validated in another independent cohort of patients with 25 benign and 89 malignant lesions by using analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve.RESULTS:The coefficient of variation for the background liver at 0.5-2 cm from the lesion was higher (196%) than that at greater than 2 cm from the lesion (66%). In the development phase, diagnostic accuracy with use of the stiffness value was significantly higher than that with use of the stiffness ratio for discrimination of malignant from benign lesions (AUC, 0.86 vs 0.66, respectively; P < .001). Diagnostic performance with the stiffness value was lower than that with the stiffness ratio (AUC, 0.53 vs 0.86, respectively; P < .001) for discrimination of cirrhotic nodules from other benign lesions. Diagnostic performance with the stiffness value was significantly lower than that with the stiffness ratio (AUC, 0.58 vs 0.71 respectively; P = .007) for discrimination of metastasis from primary liver cancers. In the validation phase, similar findings were revealed for the discrimination of malignant from benign lesions (AUC, 0.87 vs 0.67; P < .001) and discrimination between metastasis and primary liver cancers (AUC, 0.49 vs 0.73; P < .001).CONCLUSION:Use of stiffness values measured in the liver parenchyma at more than 2 cm from the lesion allowed better diagnostic performance than did values measured in a region closer to the tumor. Stiffness value was more accurate than stiffness ratio for differentiation of malignant from benign focal liver lesions, but the stiffness ratio might be useful for subclassification of benign and malignant lesions. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Tumour Stiffness Associated with Tumour Response to Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolisation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Preliminary Findings

Abstract 5547: Non-invasive monitoring of tumor biomechanics and implications for immunotherapy in HCC

Systemic Chemotherapy Improves Outcome of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Transarterial Chemoembolization

Effects of vascularity and differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma on tumor and liver stiffness: in vivo and in vitro studies.

Early Alpha-Fetoprotein Response Predicts Treatment Efficacy of Antiangiogenic Systemic Therapy in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatic Tumor Stiffness Measured by Shear Wave Elastography Is Prognostic for HCC Progression Following Treatment With Anti-PD-1 Antibodies Plus Lenvatinib: A Retrospective Analysis of Two Independent Cohorts

Impact Of Low Versus Conventional Doses Of Chemotherapy During Transcatheter Arterial Chemo-Embolization On Serum Fibrosis Indicators And Survival Of Liver Cancer Patients

Liver Cancer Vascularity Driven by Extracellular Matrix Stiffness: Implications for Imaging Research

Evaluation of MR elastography as a response parameter for transarterial chemoembolization of colorectal liver metastases

Prognostic Values of Inflammation-Based Scores and Fibrosis Markers in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Transarterial Chemoembolization

Diagnostic value of serum inflammatory markers in predicting early refractoriness of transarterial chemoembolization in patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage 0, A, and B hepatocellular carcinoma

Computed tomography radiomic features and clinical factors predicting the response to first transarterial chemoembolization in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Effect of Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization with Low or Conventional Dosage on the Fibrosis and Prognosis in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Prognostic Significance of Alpha-fetoprotein Status in the Outcome of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Treatment of Transarterial Chemoembolization

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Stiffness Value and Ratio to Discriminate Malignant from Benign Focal Liver Lesions.

Predictive Factors of Tumor Recurrence and Survival in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma treated with Transarterial Chemoembolization

HIF-1α and VEGF Levels for Monitoring Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment Response to Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization

Influencing factors related to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma patients achieved tumor response

Transarterial chemo-embolisation of hepatocellular carcinoma: impact of liver function and vascular invasion

Liver Stiffness Values to Predict Occurrence and Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Changes in Immunological Function after Treatment with Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Radiofrequency Ablation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients