Cited 3 times in
Diagnostic Performance of the 2018 EASL vs. LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 윤자경 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 이선영 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 신재승 | - |
dc.contributor.author | 노윤호 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-11-28T03:28:57Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-28T03:28:57Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023-12 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1053-1807 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/196822 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be diagnosed without pathologic confirmation in high-risk patients. Therefore, it is necessary to compare current imaging criteria for noninvasive-diagnosis of HCC. Purpose: To systematically compare performance of 2018 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria and Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for noninvasive-diagnosis of HCC. Study type: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Subjects: Eight studies with 2232 observations, including 1617 HCCs. Field strength/sequence: 1.5 T, 3.0 T/T2-weighted, unenhanced T1-weighted in-/opposed-phases, multiphase T1-weighted imaging. Assessment: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, two reviewers independently reviewed and extracted data, including patient characteristics, index test, reference standard and outcomes, from studies intraindividually comparing the sensitivities and specificities of 2018 EASL-criteria and LR-5 of LI-RADS for HCC. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated using QUADAS-2 tool. Subgroup analysis was performed based on observation size (≥20 mm, 10-19 mm). Statistical tests: Bivariate random-effects model to calculate pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of both imaging criteria, and pooled estimates of intraindividual paired data were compared considering the correlation. Forest and linked-receiver-operating-characteristic plots were drawn, and study heterogeneity was assessed using Q-test and Higgins-index. Publication bias was evaluated by Egger's test. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant, except for heterogeneity (P < 0.10). Results: The sensitivity for HCC did not differ significantly between the imaging-based diagnosis using EASL-criteria (61%; 95% CI, 50%-73%) and LR-5 (64%; 95% CI, 53%-76%; P = 0.165). The specificities were also not significantly different between EASL-criteria (92%; 95% CI, 89%-94%) and LR-5 (94%; 95% CI, 91%-96%; P = 0.257). In subgroup analysis, no statistically significant differences were identified in the pooled performances between the two criteria for observations ≥20 mm (sensitivity P = 0.065; specificity P = 0.343) or 10-19 mm (sensitivity P > 0.999; specificity P = 0.851). There was no publication bias for EASL (P = 0.396) and LI-RADS (P = 0.526). Data conclusion: In the present meta-analysis of paired comparisons, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were not significantly different between 2018 EASL-criteria and LR-5 of LI-RADS for noninvasive-diagnosis of HCC. Evidence level: 3. Technical efficacy: Stage 2. | - |
dc.description.statementOfResponsibility | restriction | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Liss | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING | - |
dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Carcinoma, Hepatocellular* / diagnostic imaging | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Carcinoma, Hepatocellular* / pathology | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Contrast Media | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Humans | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Liver Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Liver Neoplasms* / pathology | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Retrospective Studies | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Sensitivity and Specificity | - |
dc.subject.MESH | Tomography, X-Ray Computed / methods | - |
dc.title | Diagnostic Performance of the 2018 EASL vs. LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using CT and MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.contributor.college | College of Medicine (의과대학) | - |
dc.contributor.department | Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Jaeseung Shin | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Sunyoung Lee | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Ja Kyung Yoon | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Yun Ho Roh | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/jmri.28716 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A05487 | - |
dc.contributor.localId | A05659 | - |
dc.relation.journalcode | J01567 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1522-2586 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 37010244 | - |
dc.identifier.url | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmri.28716 | - |
dc.subject.keyword | computed tomography | - |
dc.subject.keyword | diagnosis | - |
dc.subject.keyword | liver neoplasms | - |
dc.subject.keyword | magnetic resonance imaging | - |
dc.subject.keyword | sensitivity and specificity | - |
dc.contributor.alternativeName | Yoon, Ja Kyung | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 윤자경 | - |
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor | 이선영 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 58 | - |
dc.citation.number | 6 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 1942 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 1950 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, Vol.58(6) : 1942-1950, 2023-12 | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.