COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparative 13-year meta-analysis of the sensitivity and positive predictive value of ultrasound, CT, and MRI for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma.

Abdominal Radiology 2016 January
PURPOSE: To compare the per-lesion sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis of sensitivity included 242 studies (15,713 patients); 116 studies (7492 patients) allowed calculation of PPV. Pooled per-lesion sensitivity and PPV for HCC detection were compared using empirical Bayes estimates of a beta-binomial model.

RESULTS: The pooled per-lesion sensitivity and PPV of contrast-enhanced CT (73.6%, 85.8%) and gadolinium-enhanced MRI (77.5%, 83.6%) are not significantly different (P = 0.08, P = 0.2). However, if the hepatobiliary agent gadoxetate is used, MRI has significantly higher pooled per-lesion sensitivity and PPV (85.6%, 94.2%) than CT (P < 0.0001) or than MRI with other agents (P < 0.0001). Non-contrast-enhanced US has the lowest overall sensitivity and PPV (59.3%, 77.4%). Pooled per-lesion sensitivity and PPV of contrast-enhanced US (84.4%, 89.3%) are relatively high, but no contrast-enhanced US study used the most rigorous reference standards.

CONCLUSION: MRI utilizing the hepatobiliary agent gadoxetate has the highest overall sensitivity and PPV, and may be the single optimal method for diagnosis of HCC. Non-contrast-enhanced US has the lowest sensitivity and PPV. More rigorous reference standards are needed to compare the performance of contrast-enhanced US with CT and MRI. Differences in sensitivity and PPV between CT and conventional gadolinium-enhanced MRI are not statistically significant overall.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app