Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 23, 2026

Enumeration of Major Peripheral Blood Leukocyte Populations for Multicenter Clinical Trials Using a Whole Blood Phenotyping Assay
Published on: September 16, 2012
ACR Ultrasound Liver Reporting and Data System: Multicenter Assessment of Clinical Performance at One Year
John D Millet1, Aya Kamaya2, Hailey H Choi3
1Department of Radiology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Purpose:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of the ACR's Ultrasound Liver Reporting and Data System (US LI-RADS™) for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients at high risk for HCC.
Methods:
In this retrospective, multicenter study, 2,050 patients at high risk for HCC (1,078 men and 972 women; mean age, 57.7 years) at five sites in the United States had undergone screening liver ultrasound from January 2017 to February 2018, and US LI-RADS observation categories and visualization scores were assigned on a clinical basis. Ultrasound reports and patient records were retrospectively reviewed and follow-up imaging studies and/or pathologic reports recorded. Descriptive statistics were generated, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the relationship of clinical and reader-based predictors of limited visualization. Diagnostic performance data were calculated in the subset of patients with confirmatory testing.
Results:
The most common indications for HCC screening were cirrhosis (n = 1,054 [51.4%]), noncirrhotic hepatitis B virus infection (n = 555 [27.1%]), and noncirrhotic hepatitis C virus infection (n = 234 [11.4%]). US LI-RADS observation categories assigned were US-1 (negative) in 90.4% (n = 1,854), US-2 (subthreshold) in 4.6% (n = 95), and US-3 (positive) in 4.9% (n = 101). Visualization scores were A (no or minimal limitations) in 76.8% (n = 1,575), B (moderate limitations) in 18.9% (n = 388), and C (severe limitations) in 4.2% (n = 87). Confirmatory tests, including multiphase contrast-enhanced CT or MRI (n = 331) or histopathology (n = 18), were available for 349 patients (17.0%). The sensitivity of US LI-RADS in this subset of patients was 82.4%, specificity was 74.2%, positive predictive value was 35.3%, and negative predictive value was 96.1%.
Conclusions:
Approximately 90% of US LI-RADS screening examinations were negative, 5% subthreshold, and 5% positive. Visualization scores were diagnostically acceptable in the vast majority (>95%) of examinations. US LI-RADS emphasized sensitivity and negative predictive value, which are key characteristics of a screening test.
More Related Videos
10:26A Multicenter MRI Protocol for the Evaluation and Quantification of Deep Vein Thrombosis
Published on: June 2, 2015
16:01An Experimental Protocol for Assessing the Performance of New Ultrasound Probes Based on CMUT Technology in Application to Brain Imaging
Published on: September 24, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Data Reporting and Recording
Performing a Simple Data Analysis using MS-Excel Function
SUM: This function calculates the total sum of a range of values. It's the foundation for aggregating data, essential for determining overall trends and totals in datasets.
AVERAGE: It computes the mean value of a given set of numbers, providing a quick insight into the central...
Statistical Software for Data Analysis and Clinical Trials
Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System I: Subjective Data
Health History
The initial step in assessing the GI system is obtaining a comprehensive health history. This includes inquiring about the patient's history or presence of problems...
Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data
Initial Enquiry
Ask the patient about their primary concern and thoroughly explore all reported symptoms.
Medical History
Investigate past illnesses affecting the cardiovascular system, such as angina, anemia, rheumatic fever, congenital heart disease, stroke, thrombophlebitis, dysrhythmias, varicosities
Inquire about symptoms...
Assessing Blood pressure using a doppler ultrasound
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Doppler Ultrasound Blood Pressure Assessment:
Preparation of Equipment: