0 148

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.author윤자경-
dc.contributor.author이선영-
dc.contributor.author신재승-
dc.contributor.author노윤호-
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-28T03:28:57Z-
dc.date.available2023-11-28T03:28:57Z-
dc.date.issued2023-12-
dc.identifier.issn1053-1807-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/196822-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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.statementOfResponsibilityrestriction-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherWiley-Liss-
dc.relation.isPartOfJOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular* / diagnostic imaging-
dc.subject.MESHCarcinoma, Hepatocellular* / pathology-
dc.subject.MESHContrast Media-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging-
dc.subject.MESHLiver Neoplasms* / pathology-
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 the 2018 EASL vs. LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using CT and MRI: 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.googleauthorJaeseung Shin-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSunyoung Lee-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJa Kyung Yoon-
dc.contributor.googleauthorYun Ho Roh-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jmri.28716-
dc.contributor.localIdA05487-
dc.contributor.localIdA05659-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ01567-
dc.identifier.eissn1522-2586-
dc.identifier.pmid37010244-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmri.28716-
dc.subject.keywordcomputed tomography-
dc.subject.keyworddiagnosis-
dc.subject.keywordliver neoplasms-
dc.subject.keywordmagnetic resonance imaging-
dc.subject.keywordsensitivity and specificity-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameYoon, Ja Kyung-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor윤자경-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthor이선영-
dc.citation.volume58-
dc.citation.number6-
dc.citation.startPage1942-
dc.citation.endPage1950-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationJOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, Vol.58(6) : 1942-1950, 2023-12-
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.