Comprehensive review reveals improved diagnosis and management of liver nodules, indicating the importance of risk stratification and advanced imaging techniques.
Liver nodules are commonly encountered in clinical practice and encompass a spectrum of benign and malignant lesions with diverse biological behaviors. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes, as some nodules have the potential to progress to hepatocellular carcinoma or other malignancies. With the rapid advancement of imaging techniques, including contrast‐enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, the detection and characterization of liver nodules have significantly improved. However, challenges remain in standardizing diagnostic criteria, risk stratification, and treatment approaches. This review provides a comprehensive summary of recent developments in the definition, classification, screening, diagnosis, and management of liver nodules. It highlights the role of multiparametric imaging, serological biomarkers, and risk assessment models such as age‐Male‐ALBI‐Platelets (aMAP) model, the scoring algorithm based on gender, age, AFP (alpha‐fetoprotein)‐L3, AFP, and des‐gamma‐carboxy prothrombin (DCP) (GALAD model), and the scoring algorithm based on gender, age, AFP, and DCP (GAAD model) in differentiating benign from malignant nodules. The importance of liver biopsy and multidisciplinary team collaboration in complex cases is also discussed. Treatment strategies, including etiological management, surgical resection, liver transplantation, ablation, interventional therapy, radiotherapy, and systemic therapy, are evaluated with an emphasis on individualized care. Additionally, recommendations for surveillance in high‐risk populations are explored, aiming to facilitate early detection and improve patient prognosis. This review serves as a valuable resource for clinicians and researchers, providing insights into the evolving landscape of liver nodule management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: