Cited 8 times in

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 category 5 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

Authors
 Sunyoung Lee  ;  Yeun-Yoon Kim  ;  Jaeseung Shin  ;  Yun Ho Roh  ;  Jin-Young Choi  ;  Victoria Chernyak  ;  Claude B Sirlin 
Citation
 EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, Vol.34(3) : 1502-1514, 2024-03 
Journal Title
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
ISSN
 0938-7994 
Issue Date
2024-03
MeSH
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular* / diagnostic imaging ; Chelating Agents ; Contrast Media / pharmacology ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms* / diagnostic imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods ; Meglumine ; Organometallic Compounds* ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity
Keywords
Carcinoma, hepatocellular ; Contrast media ; Diagnosis ; Liver neoplasm ; Radiology
Abstract
Objective: We performed an updated meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) 5 category for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using LI-RADS version 2018 (v2018), and to evaluate differences by imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.



Methods: The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 using v2018 for diagnosing HCC. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.



Results: Forty-eight studies qualified for the meta-analysis, comprising 9031 patients, 10,547 observations, and 7216 HCCs. The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC were 66% (95% CI, 61-70%) and 91% (95% CI, 89-93%), respectively. In the subgroup analysis, MRI with extracellular agent (ECA-MRI) showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (77% [95% CI, 70-82%]) than CT (66% [95% CI, 58-73%]; p = 0.023) or MRI with gadoxetate (Gx-MRI) (65% [95% CI, 60-70%]; p = 0.001), but there was no significant difference between ECA-MRI and MRI with gadobenate (gadobenate-MRI) (73% [95% CI, 61-82%]; p = 0.495). Pooled specificities were 88% (95% CI, 80-93%) for CT, 92% (95% CI, 86-95%) for ECA-MRI, 93% (95% CI, 91-95%) for Gx-MRI, and 91% (95% CI, 84-95%) for gadobenate-MRI without significant differences (p = 0.084-0.803).



Conclusions: LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material, while ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT or Gx-MRI.



Clinical relevance statement: Refinement of the criteria for improving sensitivity while maintaining high specificity of LR-5 for HCC diagnosis may be an essential future direction.



Key points: • The pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC using LI-RADSv2018 were 66% and 91%, respectively. • ECA-MRI showed higher sensitivity than CT (77% vs 66%, p = 0.023) or Gx-MRI (77% vs 65%, p = 0.001). • LI-RADS v2018 LR-5 provides high specificity (88-93%) for HCC diagnosis regardless of modality or contrast material type.
Full Text
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-023-10134-z
DOI
10.1007/s00330-023-10134-z
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Yeun-Yoon(김연윤) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2018-5332
Lee, Sunyoung(이선영) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6893-3136
Choi, Jin Young(최진영) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9025-6274
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/198823
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

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

Browse

Links