Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 10/2022

18-07-2022 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Diagnostic performance of CT versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Authors: Yeun-Yoon Kim, Sunyoung Lee, Jaeseung Shin, Won Jeong Son, Yun Ho Roh, Jeong Ah Hwang, Ji Eun Lee

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare the performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 (LR-5) for diagnosing HCC between CT and MRI using comparative studies.

Methods

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to April 21, 2021, to identify studies that directly compare the diagnostic performance of LR-5 for HCC between CT and MRI. A bivariate random-effects model was fitted to calculate the pooled per-observation sensitivity and specificity of LR-5 of each modality, and compare the pooled estimates of paired data. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the MRI contrast agent.

Results

Seven studies with 1145 observations (725 HCCs) were included in the final analysis. The pooled per-observation sensitivity of LR-5 for diagnosing HCC was higher using MRI (61%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 43–76%; I2 = 95%) than CT (48%; 95% CI, 31–65%; I2 = 97%) (p < 0.001). The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 did not show statistically significant difference between CT (96%; 95% CI, 92–98%; I2 = 0%) and MRI (93%; 95% CI, 88–96%; I2 = 16%) (p = 0.054). In the subgroup analysis, extracellular contrast agent–enhanced MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than gadoxetic acid–enhanced MRI for diagnosing HCC (73% [95% CI, 55–85%] vs. 55% [95% CI, 39–70%]; p = 0.007), without a significant difference in specificity (93% [95% CI, 80–98%] vs. 94% [95% CI, 87–97%]; p = 0.884).

Conclusions

The LR-5 of MRI showed significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity than CT for diagnosing HCC. The pooled per-observation specificities of LR-5 were comparable between the two modalities.

Key Points

• The pooled sensitivity of LR-5 using MRI was higher than that using CT (61% versus 48%), but the pooled specificities of LR-5 were not significantly different between CT and MRI (96% versus 93%).
• Subgroup analysis according to the MRI contrast media showed a significantly higher pooled per-observation sensitivity using ECA-enhanced MRI than with EOB-enhanced MRI (73% versus 55%), and comparable specificities (93% versus 94%).
• Although LI-RADS provides a common diagnostic algorithm for CT or MRI, the per-observation performance of LR-5 can be affected by the imaging modality as well as the MRI contrast agent.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A et al (2021) Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 7:6CrossRef Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A et al (2021) Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers 7:6CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kim TH, Kim SY, Tang A, Lee JM (2019) Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update. Clin Mol Hepatol 25:245–263CrossRef Kim TH, Kim SY, Tang A, Lee JM (2019) Comparison of international guidelines for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 update. Clin Mol Hepatol 25:245–263CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chen L, Zhang L, Bao J et al (2013) Comparison of MRI with liver-specific contrast agents and multidetector row CT for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of 15 direct comparative studies. Gut 62:1520–1521CrossRef Chen L, Zhang L, Bao J et al (2013) Comparison of MRI with liver-specific contrast agents and multidetector row CT for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of 15 direct comparative studies. Gut 62:1520–1521CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee JS et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 275:97–109CrossRef Lee YJ, Lee JM, Lee JS et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance of multidetector CT and MR imaging-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 275:97–109CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Chou R, Cuevas C, Fu R et al (2015) Imaging techniques for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 162:697–711CrossRef Chou R, Cuevas C, Fu R et al (2015) Imaging techniques for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 162:697–711CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Guo J, Seo Y, Ren S et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:1960–1972CrossRef Guo J, Seo Y, Ren S et al (2016) Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:1960–1972CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Roberts LR, Sirlin CB, Zaiem F et al (2018) Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 67:401–421CrossRef Roberts LR, Sirlin CB, Zaiem F et al (2018) Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology 67:401–421CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A et al (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology 289:816–830CrossRef Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A et al (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018: imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology 289:816–830CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lee S, Kim SS, Roh YH, Choi JY, Park MS, Kim MJ (2020) Diagnostic performance of CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2017 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver Int 40:1488–1497CrossRef Lee S, Kim SS, Roh YH, Choi JY, Park MS, Kim MJ (2020) Diagnostic performance of CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2017 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver Int 40:1488–1497CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lee S, Kim YY, Shin J et al (2020) CT and MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Am Coll Radiol 17:1199–1206CrossRef Lee S, Kim YY, Shin J et al (2020) CT and MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Am Coll Radiol 17:1199–1206CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: substantial discordance between CT and MR for imaging classification of hepatic nodules. Acad Radiol 23:344–352CrossRef Zhang YD, Zhu FP, Xu X et al (2016) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: substantial discordance between CT and MR for imaging classification of hepatic nodules. Acad Radiol 23:344–352CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Corwin MT, Fananapazir G, Jin M, Lamba R, Bashir MR (2016) Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System categorization between MRI and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:307–312CrossRef Corwin MT, Fananapazir G, Jin M, Lamba R, Bashir MR (2016) Differences in Liver Imaging and Reporting Data System categorization between MRI and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:307–312CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chernyak V, Flusberg M, Law A, Kobi M, Paroder V, Rozenblit AM (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: discordance between computed tomography and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma major features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 42:155–161CrossRef Chernyak V, Flusberg M, Law A, Kobi M, Paroder V, Rozenblit AM (2018) Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System: discordance between computed tomography and gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma major features. J Comput Assist Tomogr 42:155–161CrossRef
14.
go back to reference McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD et al (2018) Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319:388–396CrossRef McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD et al (2018) Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319:388–396CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK et al (2020) Magnetic resonance imaging with extracellular contrast detects hepatocellular carcinoma with greater accuracy than with gadoxetic acid or computed tomography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 18:2091-2100.e2097 Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK et al (2020) Magnetic resonance imaging with extracellular contrast detects hepatocellular carcinoma with greater accuracy than with gadoxetic acid or computed tomography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 18:2091-2100.e2097
16.
go back to reference Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRef Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990CrossRef Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990CrossRef
18.
go back to reference van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T (2002) Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 21:589–624CrossRef van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T (2002) Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med 21:589–624CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Chen N, Motosugi U, Morisaka H et al (2016) Added value of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatocyte-phase image to the LI-RADS system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 15:49–59CrossRef Chen N, Motosugi U, Morisaka H et al (2016) Added value of a gadoxetic acid-enhanced hepatocyte-phase image to the LI-RADS system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma. Magn Reson Med Sci 15:49–59CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kim BR, Lee JM, Lee DH et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging versus multidetector CT in the detection of dysplastic nodules and early hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 285:134–146CrossRef Kim BR, Lee JM, Lee DH et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging versus multidetector CT in the detection of dysplastic nodules and early hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 285:134–146CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Basha MAA, AlAzzazy MZ, Ahmed AF et al (2018) Does a combined CT and MRI protocol enhance the diagnostic efficacy of LI-RADS in the categorization of hepatic observations? A prospective comparative study. Eur Radiol 28:2592–2603CrossRef Basha MAA, AlAzzazy MZ, Ahmed AF et al (2018) Does a combined CT and MRI protocol enhance the diagnostic efficacy of LI-RADS in the categorization of hepatic observations? A prospective comparative study. Eur Radiol 28:2592–2603CrossRef
22.
go back to reference An C, Lee CH, Byun JH et al (2019) Intraindividual comparison between gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and dynamic computed tomography for characterizing focal hepatic lesions: a multicenter, multireader study. Korean J Radiol 20:1616–1626CrossRef An C, Lee CH, Byun JH et al (2019) Intraindividual comparison between gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and dynamic computed tomography for characterizing focal hepatic lesions: a multicenter, multireader study. Korean J Radiol 20:1616–1626CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Nakao S, Tanabe M, Okada M et al (2019) Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: comparison between computed tomography and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Jpn J Radiol 37:651–659CrossRef Nakao S, Tanabe M, Okada M et al (2019) Liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) v2018: comparison between computed tomography and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Jpn J Radiol 37:651–659CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Yoon JH, Lee JM, Lee YJ, Lee KB, Han JK (2019) Added value of sequentially performed gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI for the diagnosis of small (10-19 mm) or atypical hepatic observations at contrast-enhanced CT: a prospective comparison. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:574–587CrossRef Yoon JH, Lee JM, Lee YJ, Lee KB, Han JK (2019) Added value of sequentially performed gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI for the diagnosis of small (10-19 mm) or atypical hepatic observations at contrast-enhanced CT: a prospective comparison. J Magn Reson Imaging 49:574–587CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB (2014) CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: part II. Extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features. Radiology 273:30–50CrossRef Choi JY, Lee JM, Sirlin CB (2014) CT and MR imaging diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: part II. Extracellular agents, hepatobiliary agents, and ancillary imaging features. Radiology 273:30–50CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Hanna RF, Miloushev VZ, Tang A et al (2016) Comparative 13-year meta-analysis of the sensitivity and positive predictive value of ultrasound, CT, and MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:71–90CrossRef Hanna RF, Miloushev VZ, Tang A et al (2016) Comparative 13-year meta-analysis of the sensitivity and positive predictive value of ultrasound, CT, and MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:71–90CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK et al (2018) Prospective intraindividual comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetic acid and extracellular contrast for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinomas using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. Hepatology 68:2254–2266CrossRef Min JH, Kim JM, Kim YK et al (2018) Prospective intraindividual comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetic acid and extracellular contrast for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinomas using the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System. Hepatology 68:2254–2266CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Paisant A, Vilgrain V, Riou J et al (2020) Comparison of extracellular and hepatobiliary MR contrast agents for the diagnosis of small HCCs. J Hepatol 72:937–945CrossRef Paisant A, Vilgrain V, Riou J et al (2020) Comparison of extracellular and hepatobiliary MR contrast agents for the diagnosis of small HCCs. J Hepatol 72:937–945CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Shin J, Lee S, Yoon JK, Chung YE, Choi JY, Park MS (2021) LI-RADS major features on MRI for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 54:518–525CrossRef Shin J, Lee S, Yoon JK, Chung YE, Choi JY, Park MS (2021) LI-RADS major features on MRI for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 54:518–525CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Kim DW, Choi SH, Park T, Kim SY, Lee SS, Byun JH (2022) Transient severe motion artifact on arterial phase in gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Invest Radiol 57:62–70CrossRef Kim DW, Choi SH, Park T, Kim SY, Lee SS, Byun JH (2022) Transient severe motion artifact on arterial phase in gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Invest Radiol 57:62–70CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Gutzeit A, Matoori S, Froehlich JM et al (2016) Reduction in respiratory motion artefacts on gadoxetate-enhanced MRI after training technicians to apply a simple and more patient-adapted breathing command. Eur Radiol 26:2714–2722CrossRef Gutzeit A, Matoori S, Froehlich JM et al (2016) Reduction in respiratory motion artefacts on gadoxetate-enhanced MRI after training technicians to apply a simple and more patient-adapted breathing command. Eur Radiol 26:2714–2722CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Chang SD, Cunha GM, Chernyak V (2021) MR imaging contrast agents: role in imaging of chronic liver diseases. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 29:329–345CrossRef Chang SD, Cunha GM, Chernyak V (2021) MR imaging contrast agents: role in imaging of chronic liver diseases. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 29:329–345CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Kim DW, Choi SH, Kim SY et al (2020) Diagnostic performance of MRI for HCC according to contrast agent type: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatol Int 14:1009–1022CrossRef Kim DW, Choi SH, Kim SY et al (2020) Diagnostic performance of MRI for HCC according to contrast agent type: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatol Int 14:1009–1022CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic performance of CT versus MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 5 for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
Authors
Yeun-Yoon Kim
Sunyoung Lee
Jaeseung Shin
Won Jeong Son
Yun Ho Roh
Jeong Ah Hwang
Ji Eun Lee
Publication date
18-07-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08985-z

Other articles of this Issue 10/2022

European Radiology 10/2022 Go to the issue