Diagnostic Performance of LI-RADS v2018 versus KLCA-NCC 2018 Criteria for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging with Hepatobiliary Agent: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background/Aims: To compare the performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCANCC) 2018 criteria for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with hepatobiliary agent (HBA). Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies from January 1, 2018, to October 20, 2021, that compared the diagnostic performance of two imaging criteria on HBA-MRI. A bivariate random-effects model was fitted to calculate the per-observation sensitivity and specificity, and the estimates of paired data were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the observation size. Meta-regression analysis was also performed for study heterogeneity. Results: Of the six studies included, the pooled sensitivity of the definite HCC category of the KLCA-NCC criteria (82%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74% to 90%; I2=84%) was higher than that of LR-5 of LI-RADS v2018 (65%; 95% CI, 52% to 77%; I2=96%) for diagnosing HCC (p<0.001), while the specificity was lower for KLCA-NCC criteria (87%; 95% CI, 84% to 91%; I2=0%) than LI-RADS v2018 (93%; 95% CI, 91% to 96%; I2=0%) (p=0.017). For observations sized ≥20 mm, the sensitivity was higher for KLCA-NCC 2018 than for LI-RADS v2018 (84% vs 74%, p=0.012), with no significant difference in specificity (81% vs 85%, p=0.451). The reference standard was a significant factor contributing to the heterogeneity of sensitivities. Conclusions: The definite HCC category of KLCA-NCC 2018 provided a higher sensitivity and lower specificity than the LR-5 of LI-RADS v2018 for diagnosing HCC using MRI with HBA.
Abstract
Background/Aims: To compare the performance of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 and Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCANCC) 2018 criteria for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with hepatobiliary agent (HBA). Methods: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies from January 1, 2018, to October 20, 2021, that compared the diagnostic performance of two imaging criteria on HBA-MRI. A bivariate random-effects model was fitted to calculate the per-observation sensitivity and specificity, and the estimates of paired data were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the observation size. Meta-regression analysis was also performed for study heterogeneity. Results: Of the six studies included, the pooled sensitivity of the definite HCC category of the KLCA-NCC criteria (82%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 74% to 90%; I2=84%) was higher than that of LR-5 of LI-RADS v2018 (65%; 95% CI, 52% to 77%; I2=96%) for diagnosing HCC (p<0.001), while the specificity was lower for KLCA-NCC criteria (87%; 95% CI, 84% to 91%; I2=0%) than LI-RADS v2018 (93%; 95% CI, 91% to 96%; I2=0%) (p=0.017). For observations sized ≥20 mm, the sensitivity was higher for KLCA-NCC 2018 than for LI-RADS v2018 (84% vs 74%, p=0.012), with no significant difference in specificity (81% vs 85%, p=0.451). The reference standard was a significant factor contributing to the heterogeneity of sensitivities. Conclusions: The definite HCC category of KLCA-NCC 2018 provided a higher sensitivity and lower specificity than the LR-5 of LI-RADS v2018 for diagnosing HCC using MRI with HBA.
참고문헌 (20)
- Asrani SK, "Burden of liver diseases in the world", J Hepatol, 70, pp.151~171 (2019)
- EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines, "management of hepatocellular carcinoma", J Hepatol, 69, pp.182~236 (2018)
- Korean Liver Cancer Association (KLCA) and National Cancer Center (NCC, "2018 Korean Liver Cancer Association–National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma", Korean Journal of Radiology, 20(7), pp.1042~1113 (2019), 대한영상의학회[DOI]
- Marrero JA, "Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma : 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases", Hepatology, 68, pp.723~750 (2018)
- Tae-Hyung Kim, "Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update", Clinical and Molecular Hepatology, 25(3), pp.245~263 (2019), 대한간학회
- "CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018" (2018)[URL]
- Lee S, "CT and MRI liver imaging reporting and data system version 2018 for hepatocellular carcinoma : a systematic review with meta-analysis", J Am Coll Radiol, 17, pp.1199~1206 (2020)
- Kim DH, "Diagnostic performance of KLCA-NCC 2018 criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis", Diagnostics(Basel), 11, pp.1763~ (2021)
- Byun J, "Comparison of the diagnostic performance of imaging criteria for HCCs ≤ 3. 0 cm on gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI", Hepatol Int, 14, pp.534~543 (2020)
- 이선영, "Comparison of LI-RADS 2018 and KLCA-NCC 2018 for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using magnetic resonance imaging", Clinical and Molecular Hepatology, 26(3), pp.340~351 (2020), 대한간학회[DOI]
- Jeon SK, "Comparison of guidelines for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in transplantation candidates", Eur Radiol, 30, pp.4762~4771 (2020)
- Hwang SH, "Comparison of the current guidelines for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma using gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging", Eur Radiol, 31, pp.4492~4503 (2021)
- 이상민, "Diagnostic Performance of 2018 KLCA-NCC Practice Guideline for Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B or Cirrhosis: Comparison with LI-RADS Version 2018", Korean Journal of Radiology, 22(7), pp.1066~1076 (2021), 대한영상의학회[DOI]
- Park SH, "Retrospective analysis of current guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI in at-risk patients", Eur Radiol, 31, pp.4751~4763 (2021)
- McInnes M, "Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies : the PRISMA-DTA Statement", JAMA, 319, pp.388~396 (2018)
- Whiting PF, "QUADAS-2 : a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies", Ann Intern Med, 155, pp.529~536 (2011)
- Reitsma JB, "Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews", J Clin Epidemiol, 58, pp.982~990 (2005)
- van Houwelingen HC, "Advanced methods in meta-analysis : multivariate approach and metaregression", Stat Med, 21, pp.589~624 (2002)
- Takwoingi Y, "Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy", Ann Intern Med, 158, pp.544~554 (2013)
- Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A, "Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research : evaluation of current practices", Eur Radiol, 29, pp.5386~5394 (2019)