LI‐RADS Major Features on MRI for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

• Published in: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Vol. 54; no. 2; pp. 518 - 525
• Main Authors: Shin, Jaeseung, Lee, Sunyoung, Yoon, Ja Kyung, Chung, Yong Eun, Choi, Jin‐Young, Park, Mi‐Suk
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.08.2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Bivariate analysis; Confidence intervals; Contrast agents; contrast media; Diagnosis; Field strength; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Heterogeneity; Liver cancer; liver neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Medical imaging; Meta-analysis; Population characteristics; Population studies; Quality assessment; Quality control; Sensitivity; sensitivity and specificity; Statistical analysis; Statistical tests; Systematic review; liver neoplasms; diagnosis; magnetic resonance imaging; sensitivity and specificity; contrast media
• ISSN: 1053-1807; 1522-2586; 1522-2586
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27570

Background The reported diagnostic performance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of each major imaging feature on MRI using standardized definitions of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI‐RADS) is variable. It is important to know the actual performance of each LI‐RADS major imaging feature for imaging diagnosis of HCC and determine the sources of heterogeneity between the reported results. Purpose To systematically determine the performance of each major imaging feature of LI‐RADS for diagnosing HCC using either extracellular contrast agent‐enhanced MRI (ECA‐MRI) or gadoxetate disodium‐enhanced MRI (EOB‐MRI). Study Type Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Subjects Sixteen original articles with 3542 lesions. Field Strength A 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Assessment Data extraction was independently performed by two reviewers who identified and reviewed original articles reporting the diagnostic performance of each LI‐RADS major imaging feature—arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE), observation size, washout appearance, enhancing “capsule,” and threshold growth—using MRI. Study characteristics, study population characteristics, MRI characteristics, contrast agent, LI‐RADS version, reference standards, and study outcomes were extracted from included studies. Risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 tool. Statistical Tests Bivariate random‐effects models were used to obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic performance of each LI‐RADS major imaging feature. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted. Meta‐regression analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results The pooled per‐observation sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing HCC were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 78%–89%) and 57% (95% CI = 44%–70%) for arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE), 77% (95% CI = 72%–82%), and 74% (95% CI = 63%–83%) for washout appearance, and 52% (95% CI = 41%–64%) and 90% (95% CI = 85%–94%) for enhancing “capsule,” respectively. Data Conclusions Among the LI‐RADS major features, the sensitivity was the highest for APHE and the specificity was the highest for enhancing “capsule” in the diagnosis of HCC. Evidence Level 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2