Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Lee, Sunyoung; Kim, Yeun-Yoon; Shin, Jaeseung; Shin, Hyejung; Sirlin, Claude B; Chernyak, Victoria.
Afiliação
  • Lee S; Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Kim YY; Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Shin J; Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Shin H; Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Sirlin CB; Liver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
  • Chernyak V; Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. vichka17@hotmail.com.
Eur Radiol ; 2024 May 29.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38809263
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.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Eur Radiol Assunto da revista: RADIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Alemanha

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Eur Radiol Assunto da revista: RADIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Alemanha