Nicole Abedrabbo, Emily Lerner, Eric Lam, Diana Kadi, Haben Dawit, Christian van der Pol, Jean-Paul Salameh, Haresh Naringrekar, Robert Adamo, Mostafa Alabousi, Brooke Levis, An Tang, Ayman Alhasan, Ashwini Arvind, Amit Singal, Brian Allen, Krzysztof Bartnik, Joanna Podgórska, Alessandro Furlan, Roberto Cannella, Marco Dioguardi Burgio, Milena Cerny, Sang Hyun Choi, Christopher Clarke, Xiang Jing, Andrea Kierans, Maxime Ronot, Grzegorz Rosiak, Hanyu Jiang, Ji Soo Song, Caecilia C Reiner, Ijin Joo, Heejin Kwon, Wentao Wang, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Federico Diaz Telli, Federico Piñero, Nieun Seo, Hyo-Jin Kang, Jin Wang, Ji Hye Min, Andreu Costa, Matthew McInnes, Mustafa Bashir
{"title":"并发 LR-5 是否与 LR-3 或 LR-4 观察结果中较高的肝细胞癌发生率相关？个体参与者数据荟萃分析。","authors":"Nicole Abedrabbo, Emily Lerner, Eric Lam, Diana Kadi, Haben Dawit, Christian van der Pol, Jean-Paul Salameh, Haresh Naringrekar, Robert Adamo, Mostafa Alabousi, Brooke Levis, An Tang, Ayman Alhasan, Ashwini Arvind, Amit Singal, Brian Allen, Krzysztof Bartnik, Joanna Podgórska, Alessandro Furlan, Roberto Cannella, Marco Dioguardi Burgio, Milena Cerny, Sang Hyun Choi, Christopher Clarke, Xiang Jing, Andrea Kierans, Maxime Ronot, Grzegorz Rosiak, Hanyu Jiang, Ji Soo Song, Caecilia C Reiner, Ijin Joo, Heejin Kwon, Wentao Wang, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Federico Diaz Telli, Federico Piñero, Nieun Seo, Hyo-Jin Kang, Jin Wang, Ji Hye Min, Andreu Costa, Matthew McInnes, Mustafa Bashir","doi":"10.1007/s00261-024-04580-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) does not consider factors extrinsic to the observation of interest, such as concurrent LR-5 observations.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether the presence of a concurrent LR-5 observation is associated with a difference in the probability that LR-3 or LR-4 observations represent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multiple databases were searched from 1/2014 to 2/2023 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CT/MRI for HCC using LI-RADS v2014/2017/2018. The search strategy, study selection, and data collection process can be found at https://osf.io/rpg8x . Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), IPD were pooled across studies and modeled simultaneously with a one-stage meta-analysis approach to estimate positive predictive value (PPV) of LR-3 and LR-4 observations without and with concurrent LR-5 for the diagnosis of HCC. Risk of bias was assessed using a composite reference standard and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine studies comprising 2591 observations in 1456 patients (mean age 59 years, 1083 [74%] male) were included. 587/1960 (29.9%) LR-3 observations in 1009 patients had concurrent LR-5. The PPV for LR-3 observations with concurrent LR-5 was not significantly different from the PPV without LR-5 (45.4% vs 37.1%, p = 0.63). 264/631 (41.8%) LR-4 observations in 447 patients had concurrent LR-5. The PPV for LR-4 observations with concurrent LR-5 was not significantly different from LR-4 observations without concurrent LR-5 (88.6% vs 69.5%, p = 0.08). A sensitivity analysis for low-risk of bias studies (n = 9) did not differ from the primary analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The presence of concurrent LR-5 was not significantly associated with differences in PPV for HCC in LR-3 or LR-4 observations, supporting the current LI-RADS paradigm, wherein the presence of synchronous LR-5 may not alter the categorization of LR-3 and LR-4 observations.</p>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is concurrent LR-5 associated with a higher rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in LR-3 or LR-4 observations? An individual participant data meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole Abedrabbo, Emily Lerner, Eric Lam, Diana Kadi, Haben Dawit, Christian van der Pol, Jean-Paul Salameh, Haresh Naringrekar, Robert Adamo, Mostafa Alabousi, Brooke Levis, An Tang, Ayman Alhasan, Ashwini Arvind, Amit Singal, Brian Allen, Krzysztof Bartnik, Joanna Podgórska, Alessandro Furlan, Roberto Cannella, Marco Dioguardi Burgio, Milena Cerny, Sang Hyun Choi, Christopher Clarke, Xiang Jing, Andrea Kierans, Maxime Ronot, Grzegorz Rosiak, Hanyu Jiang, Ji Soo Song, Caecilia C Reiner, Ijin Joo, Heejin Kwon, Wentao Wang, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Federico Diaz Telli, Federico Piñero, Nieun Seo, Hyo-Jin Kang, Jin Wang, Ji Hye Min, Andreu Costa, Matthew McInnes, Mustafa Bashir\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00261-024-04580-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) does not consider factors extrinsic to the observation of interest, such as concurrent LR-5 observations.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate whether the presence of a concurrent LR-5 observation is associated with a difference in the probability that LR-3 or LR-4 observations represent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multiple databases were searched from 1/2014 to 2/2023 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CT/MRI for HCC using LI-RADS v2014/2017/2018. The search strategy, study selection, and data collection process can be found at https://osf.io/rpg8x . Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), IPD were pooled across studies and modeled simultaneously with a one-stage meta-analysis approach to estimate positive predictive value (PPV) of LR-3 and LR-4 observations without and with concurrent LR-5 for the diagnosis of HCC. Risk of bias was assessed using a composite reference standard and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine studies comprising 2591 observations in 1456 patients (mean age 59 years, 1083 [74%] male) were included. 587/1960 (29.9%) LR-3 observations in 1009 patients had concurrent LR-5. The PPV for LR-3 observations with concurrent LR-5 was not significantly different from the PPV without LR-5 (45.4% vs 37.1%, p = 0.63). 264/631 (41.8%) LR-4 observations in 447 patients had concurrent LR-5. The PPV for LR-4 observations with concurrent LR-5 was not significantly different from LR-4 observations without concurrent LR-5 (88.6% vs 69.5%, p = 0.08). A sensitivity analysis for low-risk of bias studies (n = 9) did not differ from the primary analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The presence of concurrent LR-5 was not significantly associated with differences in PPV for HCC in LR-3 or LR-4 observations, supporting the current LI-RADS paradigm, wherein the presence of synchronous LR-5 may not alter the categorization of LR-3 and LR-4 observations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Abdominal Radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Abdominal Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04580-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-024-04580-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Is concurrent LR-5 associated with a higher rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in LR-3 or LR-4 observations? An individual participant data meta-analysis.
Background: The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) does not consider factors extrinsic to the observation of interest, such as concurrent LR-5 observations.
Purpose: To evaluate whether the presence of a concurrent LR-5 observation is associated with a difference in the probability that LR-3 or LR-4 observations represent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.
Methods: Multiple databases were searched from 1/2014 to 2/2023 for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of CT/MRI for HCC using LI-RADS v2014/2017/2018. The search strategy, study selection, and data collection process can be found at https://osf.io/rpg8x . Using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM), IPD were pooled across studies and modeled simultaneously with a one-stage meta-analysis approach to estimate positive predictive value (PPV) of LR-3 and LR-4 observations without and with concurrent LR-5 for the diagnosis of HCC. Risk of bias was assessed using a composite reference standard and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2).
Results: Twenty-nine studies comprising 2591 observations in 1456 patients (mean age 59 years, 1083 [74%] male) were included. 587/1960 (29.9%) LR-3 observations in 1009 patients had concurrent LR-5. The PPV for LR-3 observations with concurrent LR-5 was not significantly different from the PPV without LR-5 (45.4% vs 37.1%, p = 0.63). 264/631 (41.8%) LR-4 observations in 447 patients had concurrent LR-5. The PPV for LR-4 observations with concurrent LR-5 was not significantly different from LR-4 observations without concurrent LR-5 (88.6% vs 69.5%, p = 0.08). A sensitivity analysis for low-risk of bias studies (n = 9) did not differ from the primary analysis.
Conclusion: The presence of concurrent LR-5 was not significantly associated with differences in PPV for HCC in LR-3 or LR-4 observations, supporting the current LI-RADS paradigm, wherein the presence of synchronous LR-5 may not alter the categorization of LR-3 and LR-4 observations.
期刊介绍：
Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section.
Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology:
· Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR)
· Published in Cooperation with:
European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR)
European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)
Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR)
· Efficient handling and Expeditious review
· Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style
· Global readership
· Readers can earn CME credits
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
