Suppr超能文献

LI-RADS 类别 5 与类别 4 和 5 联合的表现:系统评价和荟萃分析。

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

机构信息

Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

Eur Radiol. 2024 Nov;34(11):7025-7040. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10813-5. Epub 2024 May 29.

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.

摘要

目的

计算机断层扫描(CT)/磁共振成像(MRI)肝脏成像报告和数据系统(LI-RADS,LR)类别 5 对肝细胞癌(HCC)的诊断具有高特异性和适度的敏感性。本研究的目的是比较 LR-5 与 LR-4 和 LR-5 联合(LR-4/5)用于 HCC 诊断的诊断性能。

方法

通过 2023 年 1 月 3 日的 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库,搜索了使用 CT/MRI LI-RADS 2014、2017 或 2018 版报告 LR-5 和 LR-4/5 联合用于 HCC 诊断的表现的研究。使用双变量随机效应模型计算了汇总观察诊断性能。基于成像方式和 MRI 对比材料的类型进行了亚组分析。

结果

共纳入 69 项研究(15108 个观察,9928 例(65.7%)HCC)。与 LR-5 相比,LR-4/5 联合具有显著更高的汇总敏感性(83.0%(95%CI[80.3-85.8%])比 65.7%(95%CI[62.4-69.1%]);p<0.001),更低的汇总特异性(75.0%(95%CI[70.5-79.6%])比 91.7%(95%CI[90.2-93.1%]);p<0.001),更低的汇总阳性似然比(3.60(95%CI[3.06-4.23])比 6.18(95%CI[5.35-7.14]);p<0.001),以及更低的汇总阴性似然比(0.22(95%CI[0.19-0.25])比 0.38(95%CI[0.35-0.41]);p<0.001)。所有亚组均观察到类似的结果。

结论

我们的荟萃分析表明,将 LR-4 和 LR-5 结合使用会提高敏感性,但会降低特异性、阳性似然比和阴性似然比。这些发现可能为管理指南和个体化管理提供信息。

临床相关性声明

这项荟萃分析估计了当将 LI-RADS 类别 4 和 5 组合使用时,影像学标准的敏感性和特异性变化的幅度;这些发现可以为管理指南和个体化管理提供信息。

要点

世界上没有单一的肝脏成像报告系统,部分原因是地区需求不同。将 LI-RADS 类别 4 和 5 结合使用会提高敏感性,降低特异性、阳性和阴性似然比。影像学标准的敏感性和特异性变化可以为管理指南和个体化管理提供信息。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验