Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024
Diagnostic performance of MRI for residual or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional treatment according to contrast agent type: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Shuwei, Wang Siyu, Xiang Jian, Han Zhongyu, Wang Weilang, Zhang Shuhang, Opara Noble Chibuike, Ju Shenghong, Cui Ying, Wang Yuan-Cheng
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The ideal contrast agent for imaging patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following locoregional therapies (LRT) remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging with extracellular contrast agent (ECA-MRI) and hepatobiliary agent (EOB-MRI) in detecting residual or recurrence HCC following LRT.
METHODS: Original studies comparing the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were systematically identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were calculated using a bivariate-random-effects model. Subgroup-analyses were conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to different variables. Meta-regression analysis was employed to explore potential sources of study heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 15 eligible studies encompassing 803 patients and 1018 lesions were included. Comparative analysis revealed no significant difference between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI in the overall pooled sensitivity (87% vs. 79%) and specificity (92% vs. 96%) for the detection of residual or recurrent HCC after LRT (P = 0.41), with comparable areas under the HSROC of 0.95 and 0.92. Subgroup analyses indicated no significant diagnostic performance differences between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to study design, type of LRT, most common etiology of liver disease, baseline lesion size, time of post-treated examination and MRI field strength (All P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: ECA-MRI exhibited overall comparable diagnostic performance to EOB-MRI in assessing residual or recurrent HCC after LRT.
METHODS: Original studies comparing the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were systematically identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were calculated using a bivariate-random-effects model. Subgroup-analyses were conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to different variables. Meta-regression analysis was employed to explore potential sources of study heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 15 eligible studies encompassing 803 patients and 1018 lesions were included. Comparative analysis revealed no significant difference between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI in the overall pooled sensitivity (87% vs. 79%) and specificity (92% vs. 96%) for the detection of residual or recurrent HCC after LRT (P = 0.41), with comparable areas under the HSROC of 0.95 and 0.92. Subgroup analyses indicated no significant diagnostic performance differences between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to study design, type of LRT, most common etiology of liver disease, baseline lesion size, time of post-treated examination and MRI field strength (All P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: ECA-MRI exhibited overall comparable diagnostic performance to EOB-MRI in assessing residual or recurrent HCC after LRT.