Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating focal lesions of the liver

Hong-Zhen Wu, Ying-Ying Liang, Xin-Qing Jiang, Xin-Hua Wei, Yu Liu, Wei-Feng Liu, Yuan Guo, Wen-Jie Tang

Medicine, 2018

18 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate detection and characterization of focal liver lesions, including differentiation between malignant and benign lesions, are particularly important. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the parameters of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), pure molecular diffusion coefficient (D), perfusion-related diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) in differentiating focal liver lesions. Methods: IVIM method employed for focal liver lesion and the quality assessment of diagnostic studies were evaluated. Standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The heterogeneity was quantified with the I2 statistic. Results: The difference between groups was analyzed according to the I2 values from 6 different studies using fixed effects or random effects models. Significant differences in ADC (P < .001) and D (P < .001) were observed between benign and malignant lesions. Moreover, significant differences in ADC (P < .001), D (P < .001), and f (P = .01) were found between hemangioma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In addition, no significant difference was observed between the metastases and HCC. Conclusions: D and ADC values were useful for the differentiation between benignity and malignancy; higher values of ADC, D, and f were observed in hemangioma compared to HCC. Nevertheless, IVIM did not result as the optimal approach for differentiation between the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

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