Evidence Hub

LI-RADS treatment response algorithm for detecting incomplete necrosis in hepatocellular carcinoma after locoregional treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient data

Kim TH, Woo S, Joo I, Bashir MR, Park MS, Burke LMB, Mendiratta-Lala M, Do RKG

Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021

393 participants · 21 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient data to investigate the diagnostic performance of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) Treatment Response (TR) algorithm for detecting incomplete necrosis on pathology.

Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched from Jan 1, 2017 until October 14, 2020. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of LI-RADS TR algorithm on CT or MRI for detecting incomplete necrosis on pathology as a reference standard were included. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed for locoregional treatment (LRT) type and imaging modality.

Results: Six studies (393 patients, 534 lesions) were included. Pooled sensitivity was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.69) and specificity was 0.91 (95%CI 0.84-0.96). Pooled sensitivity was highest using arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) (0.67 [95%CI 0.51-0.81]), followed by washout (0.43 [95%CI 0.26-0.62]) and enhancement similar to pretreatment (0.24 [95%CI 0.15-0.36]). Among lesions with incomplete necrosis, 2% (95%CI 0.00-0.05) manifested as washout but no APHE; 0% (95% CI 0.00-0.02) as enhancement similar to pretreatment without both APHE and washout. Pooled sensitivity was lower after ablation than embolization (0.42 [95%CI, 0.28-0.57] vs. 0.65 [95%CI, 0.53-0.77], p = 0.033). MRI and CT were comparable (p = 0.783 and 0.290 for sensitivity and specificity).

Conclusions: LI-RADS TR algorithm shows…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 393 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free