Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of LR-5 in LI-RADS Version 2018 versus Revised LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis

  • Stacy M. Goins
  • , Hanyu Jiang
  • , Christian B. van der Pol
  • , Jean Paul Salameh
  • , Eric Lam
  • , Robert G. Adamo
  • , Matthew D.F. McInnes
  • , Andreu F. Costa
  • , An Tang
  • , Ayman S. Alhasan
  • , Brian C. Allen
  • , Caecilia S. Reiner
  • , Christopher Clarke
  • , Milena Cerny
  • , Jin Wang
  • , Sang Hyun Choi
  • , Tyler J. Fraum
  • , Daniel R. Ludwig
  • , Bin Song
  • , Ijin Joo
  • Zhen Kang, Andrea S. Kierans, So Yeon Kim, Heejin Kwon, Maxime Ronot, Joanna Podgórska, Grzegorz Rosiak, Ji Soo Song, Mustafa R. Bashir*
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: A simplification of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 (v2018), revised LI-RADS (rLI-RADS), has been proposed for imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Single-site data suggest that rLI-RADS category 5 (rLR-5) improves sensitivity while maintaining positive predictive value (PPV) of the LI-RADS v2018 category 5 (LR-5), which indicates definite HCC. Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018 and rLI-RADS in a multicenter data set of patients at risk for HCC by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases were searched for studies published from January 2014 to January 2022 that evaluated the diagnostic performance of any version of LI-RADS at CT or MRI for diagnosing HCC. An individual patient data meta-analysis method was applied to observations from the identified studies. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 was applied to determine study risk of bias. Observations were categorized according to major features and either LI-RADS v2018 or rLI-RADS assignments. Diagnostic accuracies of category 5 for each system were calculated using generalized linear mixed models and compared using the likelihood ratio test for sensitivity and the Wald test for PPV. Results: Twenty-four studies, including 3840 patients and 4727 observations, were analyzed. The median observation size was 19 mm (IQR, 11–30 mm). rLR-5 showed higher sensitivity compared with LR-5 (70.6% [95% CI: 60.7, 78.9] vs 61.3% [95% CI: 45.9, 74.7]; P < .001), with similar PPV (90.7% vs 92.3%; P = .55). In studies with low risk of bias (n = 4; 1031 observations), rLR-5 also achieved a higher sensitivity than LR-5 (72.3% [95% CI: 63.9, 80.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI: 58.2, 74.5]; P = .02), with similar PPV (83.1% vs 88.7%; P = .47). Conclusion: rLR-5 achieved a higher sensitivity for identifying HCC than LR-5 while maintaining a comparable PPV at 90% or more, matching the results presented in the original rLI-RADS study.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere231656
JournalRadiology
Volume309
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2023.12

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of LR-5 in LI-RADS Version 2018 versus Revised LI-RADS for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Diagnosis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this