0 247

Cited 5 times in

Diagnostic performance of CT versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.author이선영-
dc.contributor.author김연윤-
dc.contributor.author신재승-
dc.contributor.author노윤호-
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-22T04:41:30Z-
dc.date.available2022-12-22T04:41:30Z-
dc.date.issued2022-10-
dc.identifier.issn0938-7994-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/192192-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To compare the performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 (LR-5) for diagnosing HCC between CT and MRI using comparative studies. Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to April 21, 2021, to identify studies that directly compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 for HCC between CT and MRI. A bivariate random-effects model was fitted to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 of each modality, and compare the pooled estimates of paired data. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the MRI contrast agent. Results: Seven studies with 1145 observations (725 HCCs) were included in the final analysis. The pooled per-observation sensitivity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC was higher using MRI (61%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43-76%; I2 = 95%) than CT (48%; 95% CI, 31-65%; I2 = 97%) (p < 0.001). The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 did not show statistically significant difference between CT (96%; 95% CI, 92-98%; I2 = 0%) and MRI (93%; 95% CI, 88-96%; I2 = 16%) (p = 0.054). In the subgroup analysis, extracellular contrast agent-enhanced MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for diagnosing HCC (73% [95% CI, 55-85%] vs. 55% [95% CI, 39-70%]; p = 0.007), without a significant difference in specificity (93% [95% CI, 80-98%] vs. 94% [95% CI, 87-97%]; p = 0.884). Conclusions: The LR-5 of MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than CT for diagnosing HCC. The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 were comparable between the two modalities. Key points: • The pooled sensitivity of LR-5 using MRI was higher than that using CT (61% versus 48%), but the pooled specificities of LR-5 were not significantly different between CT and MRI (96% versus 93%). • Subgroup analysis according to the MRI contrast media showed a significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity using ECA-enhanced MRI than with EOB-enhanced MRI (73% versus 55%), and comparable specificities (93% versus 94%). • Although LI-RADS provides a common diagnostic algorithm for CT or MRI, the per-observation performance of LR-5 can be affected by the imaging modality as well as the MRI contrast agent.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherSpringer International-
dc.relation.isPartOfEUROPEAN RADIOLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular* / diagnostic imaging-
dc.subject.MESHContrast Media / pharmacology-
dc.subject.MESHGadolinium DTPA-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging-
dc.subject.MESHMagnetic Resonance Imaging / methods-
dc.subject.MESHRetrospective Studies-
dc.subject.MESHSensitivity and Specificity-
dc.subject.MESHTomography, X-Ray Computed / methods-
dc.titleDiagnostic performance of CT versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine (의과대학)-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Radiology (영상의학교실)-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYeun-Yoon Kim-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSunyoung Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJaeseung Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorWon Jeong Son-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYun Ho Roh-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJeong Ah Hwang-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJi Eun Lee-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00330-022-08985-z-
dc.contributor.localIdA05659-
dc.contributor.localIdA04902-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ00851-
dc.identifier.eissn1432-1084-
dc.identifier.pmid35849177-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-022-08985-z-
dc.subject.keywordDiagnosis-
dc.subject.keywordHepatocellular carcinoma-
dc.subject.keywordMagnetic resonance imaging-
dc.subject.keywordSensitivity and specificity-
dc.subject.keywordTomography, X-ray computed-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameLee, Sunyoung-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor이선영-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor김연윤-
dc.citation.volume32-
dc.citation.number10-
dc.citation.startPage6723-
dc.citation.endPage6729-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationEUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, Vol.32(10) : 6723-6729, 2022-10-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.