Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Lewis Rowland Roberts, Claude B. Sirlin, Feras Zaiem, Jehad Almasri, Larry J. Prokop, Julie K. Heimbach, Mohammad H Murad, Khaled Mohammed

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

52 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow-up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT-indeterminate or MRI-indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate-enhanced or extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI over CT. Conclusion: CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross-sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology 2018;67:401-421).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)401-421
Number of pages21
JournalHepatology
Volume67
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Tomography
Fibrosis
Biopsy
Publication Bias
Liver
Gastroenterology
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology

Cite this

Roberts, L. R., Sirlin, C. B., Zaiem, F., Almasri, J., Prokop, L. J., Heimbach, J. K., ... Mohammed, K. (2018). Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatology, 67(1), 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29487

Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Roberts, Lewis Rowland; Sirlin, Claude B.; Zaiem, Feras; Almasri, Jehad; Prokop, Larry J.; Heimbach, Julie K.; Murad, Mohammad H; Mohammed, Khaled.

In: Hepatology, Vol. 67, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 401-421.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Roberts, LR, Sirlin, CB, Zaiem, F, Almasri, J, Prokop, LJ, Heimbach, JK, Murad, MH & Mohammed, K 2018, 'Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis', Hepatology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.29487
Roberts, Lewis Rowland ; Sirlin, Claude B. ; Zaiem, Feras ; Almasri, Jehad ; Prokop, Larry J. ; Heimbach, Julie K. ; Murad, Mohammad H ; Mohammed, Khaled. / Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Hepatology. 2018 ; Vol. 67, No. 1. pp. 401-421.
@article{99822c279aba4f63883cdf5857b3f63e,
title = "Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow-up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT-indeterminate or MRI-indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate-enhanced or extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI over CT. Conclusion: CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross-sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology 2018;67:401-421).",
author = "Roberts, {Lewis Rowland} and Sirlin, {Claude B.} and Feras Zaiem and Jehad Almasri and Prokop, {Larry J.} and Heimbach, {Julie K.} and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Khaled Mohammed",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/hep.29487",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "401--421",
journal = "Hepatology",
issn = "0270-9139",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Roberts, Lewis Rowland

AU - Sirlin, Claude B.

AU - Zaiem, Feras

AU - Almasri, Jehad

AU - Prokop, Larry J.

AU - Heimbach, Julie K.

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Mohammed, Khaled

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow-up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT-indeterminate or MRI-indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate-enhanced or extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI over CT. Conclusion: CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross-sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology 2018;67:401-421).

AB - Multiphasic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are both used for noninvasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis. To determine if there is a relative diagnostic benefit of one over the other, we synthesized evidence regarding the relative performance of CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. We also assessed whether liver biopsy versus follow-up with the same versus alternative imaging is best for CT-indeterminate or MRI-indeterminate liver nodules in patients with cirrhosis. We searched multiple databases from inception to April 27, 2016, for studies comparing CT with extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI in adults with cirrhosis and suspected HCC. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Of 33 included studies, 19 were comprehensive, while 14 reported sensitivity only. For all tumor sizes, the 19 comprehensive comparisons showed significantly higher sensitivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT. The specificities of MRI versus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different. All three modalities performed better for HCCs ≥2 cm. Performance was poor for HCCs <1 cm. No studies examined whether adults with cirrhosis and an indeterminate nodule are best evaluated using biopsy, repeated imaging, or alternative imaging. Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased risk of bias, and clinical factors precluded support for exclusive use of either gadoxetate-enhanced or extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI over CT. Conclusion: CT, extracellular contrast–enhanced MRI, or gadoxetate-enhanced MRI could not be definitively preferred for HCC diagnosis in patients with cirrhosis; in patients with cirrhosis and an indeterminate mass, there were insufficient data comparing biopsy to repeat cross-sectional imaging or alternative imaging. (Hepatology 2018;67:401-421).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85036564086&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85036564086&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/hep.29487

DO - 10.1002/hep.29487

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28859233

AN - SCOPUS:85036564086

VL - 67

SP - 401

EP - 421

JO - Hepatology

JF - Hepatology

SN - 0270-9139

IS - 1

ER -