Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The Diagnostic Accuracy Between Radiomics Model and Non-radiomics Model for Preoperative of Microvascular Invasion of Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Academic Radiology 2024 April 25
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Microvascular invasion (MVI) is a key prognostic factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The predictive models for solitary HCC could potentially integrate more comprehensive tumor information. Owing to the diverse findings across studies, we aimed to compare radiomic and non-radiomic methods for preoperative MVI detection in solitary HCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Articles were reviewed from databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until April 7, 2023. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were calculated using a random-effects model within a 95% confidence interval (CI). Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using summary receiver-operating characteristic curves and the area under the curve (AUC). Meta-regression and Z-tests identified heterogeneity and compared the predictive accuracy. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare the AUC of two methods according to study type, study design, tumor size, modeling methods, and imaging modality.

RESULTS: The analysis incorporated 26 studies involving 3539 patients with solitary HCC. The radiomics models showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.79 (95%CI: 0.72-0.85) and 0.78 (95%CI: 0.73-0.82), with an AUC at 0.85 (95%CI: 0.82-0.88). Conversely, the non-radiomics models had sensitivity and specificity of 0.74 (95%CI: 0.65-0.81) and 0.88 (95%CI: 0.82-0.92) and an AUC of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.85-0.91). Subgroups with preoperative MRI, larger tumors, and functional imaging had higher accuracy than those using preoperative CT, smaller tumors, and conventional imaging.

CONCLUSION: Non-radiomic methods outperformed radiomic methods, but high heterogeneity calls across studies for cautious interpretation.

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.

Related Resources

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