Cited 4 times in

Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis

Authors
 Sunyoung Lee  ;  Yeun-Yoon Kim  ;  Jaeseung Shin  ;  Hyejung Shin  ;  Claude B Sirlin  ;  Victoria Chernyak 
Citation
 EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, Vol.34(11) : 7025-7040, 2024-11 
Journal Title
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
ISSN
 0938-7994 
Issue Date
2024-11
MeSH
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular* / diagnosis ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular* / pathology ; Contrast Media ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms* / diagnosis ; Liver Neoplasms* / pathology ; Liver* / diagnostic imaging ; Liver* / pathology ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging* / methods ; Multimodal Imaging* / methods ; Radiology Information Systems ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed* / methods
Keywords
Computed tomography ; Contrast media ; Diagnosis ; Liver neoplasms ; Magnetic resonance imaging
Abstract
Objective: Computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS, LR) category 5 has high specificity and modest sensitivity for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 vs combined LR-4 and LR-5 (LR-4/5) for HCC diagnosis.

Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 03, 2023 were searched for studies reporting the performance of LR-5 and combined LR-4/5 for HCC diagnosis, using CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2014, 2017, or 2018. A bivariate random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled per-observation diagnostic performance. Subgroup analysis was performed based on imaging modalities and type of MRI contrast material.

Results: Sixty-nine studies (15,108 observations, 9928 (65.7%) HCCs) were included. Compared to LR-5, combined LR-4/5 showed significantly higher pooled sensitivity (83.0% (95% CI [80.3-85.8%]) vs 65.7% (95% CI [62.4-69.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled specificity (75.0% (95% CI [70.5-79.6%]) vs 91.7% (95% CI [90.2-93.1%]); p < 0.001), lower pooled positive likelihood ratio (3.60 (95% CI [3.06-4.23]) vs 6.18 (95% CI [5.35-7.14]); p < 0.001), and lower pooled negative likelihood ratio (0.22 (95% CI [0.19-0.25]) vs 0.38 (95% CI [0.35-0.41]) vs; p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed that combining LR-4 and LR-5 would increase sensitivity but decrease specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio. These findings may inform management guidelines and individualized management.

Clinical relevance statement: This meta-analysis estimated the magnitude of changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria when LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 were combined; these findings can inform management guidelines and individualized management.

Key points: There is no single worldwide reporting system for liver imaging, partly due to regional needs. Combining LI-RADS categories 4 and 5 increased sensitivity and decreased specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Changes in the sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria can inform management guidelines and individualized management.
Full Text
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-024-10813-5
DOI
10.1007/s00330-024-10813-5
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Radiology (영상의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Lee, Sunyoung(이선영) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6893-3136
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/201345
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

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

Browse

Links