LI-RADS Treatment Response versus Modified RECIST for Diagnosing Viable Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Locoregional Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

3Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically compare the performance of liver imaging reporting and data system treatment response (LR-TR) with the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for diagnosing viable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with locoregional therapy (LRT). Materials and Methods: Original studies of intra-individual comparisons between the diagnostic performance of LR-TR and mRECIST using dynamic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE, up to August 25, 2021. The reference standard for tumor viability was surgical pathology. The meta-analytic pooled sensitivity and specificity of the viable category using each criterion were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model and compared using bivariate meta-regression. Results: For five eligible studies (430 patients with 631 treated observations), the pooled per-lesion sensitivities and specificities were 58% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45%-70%) and 93% (95% CI, 88%-96%) for the LR-TR viable category and 56% (95% CI, 42%-69%) and 86% (95% CI, 72%-94%) for the mRECIST viable category, respectively. The LR-TR viable category provided significantly higher pooled specificity (p < 0.01) than the mRECIST but comparable pooled sensitivity (p = 0.53). Conclusion: The LR-TR algorithm demonstrated better specificity than mRECIST, without a significant difference in sensitivity for the diagnosis of pathologically viable HCC after LRT. Copyrights

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, D. H., Kim, B., Choi, J. I., Oh, S. N., & Rha, S. E. (2022). LI-RADS Treatment Response versus Modified RECIST for Diagnosing Viable Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Locoregional Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, 83, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2021.0173

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free