Performance of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

I. Floriani, M. D'Onofrio, E. Rulli, M. H. Chen, R. Li, L. Musicco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: The recent guidelines published in 2011 suggest the use of only one imaging method for the final imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. To evaluate the methods in the context of the available literature evidence, this systematic review aimed at assessing the relative performance of different imaging techniques currently used in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1996 to June 2011, with no language limitation. Eligible trials had to be conducted in patients with suspicion or diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma; compare at least two of the following imaging modalities: magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasound; have pathological findings as a reference standard. An analysis also including non-comparative studies was performed as a validation of the main comparison results. Results: Of 5,144 screened papers, 16 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the comparative analysis and 65 were eligible for the non-comparative analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity derived by the pooled analysis were 0.78 and 0.77 for computed tomography, 0.84 and 0.84 for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.86 and 0.77 for ultrasound, respectively. In the pair-wise comparisons, ultrasound showed a statistically better specificity than magnetic resonance imaging (0.86 vs. 0.78; p = 0.014) and a statistically better sensitivity than computed tomography (0.88 vs. 0.78; p = 0.030). Conclusion: The present systematic review did not show an obvious superiority of one imaging method. Since their accuracy is not completely overlapping, the possibility of reaching better performance by combining methods should be considered in future prospective trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)454-462
Number of pages9
JournalUltraschall in der Medizin
Volume34
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MEDLINE
Language
Guidelines
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • diagnostic tests
  • hepatocellular carcinoma
  • systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Performance of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Floriani, I.; D'Onofrio, M.; Rulli, E.; Chen, M. H.; Li, R.; Musicco, L.

In: Ultraschall in der Medizin, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2013, p. 454-462.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Floriani, I. ; D'Onofrio, M. ; Rulli, E. ; Chen, M. H. ; Li, R. ; Musicco, L. / Performance of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Ultraschall in der Medizin. 2013 ; Vol. 34, No. 5. pp. 454-462.
@article{78b8cc68030c4f71aef01a6d03803361,
title = "Performance of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Purpose: The recent guidelines published in 2011 suggest the use of only one imaging method for the final imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. To evaluate the methods in the context of the available literature evidence, this systematic review aimed at assessing the relative performance of different imaging techniques currently used in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1996 to June 2011, with no language limitation. Eligible trials had to be conducted in patients with suspicion or diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma; compare at least two of the following imaging modalities: magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasound; have pathological findings as a reference standard. An analysis also including non-comparative studies was performed as a validation of the main comparison results. Results: Of 5,144 screened papers, 16 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the comparative analysis and 65 were eligible for the non-comparative analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity derived by the pooled analysis were 0.78 and 0.77 for computed tomography, 0.84 and 0.84 for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.86 and 0.77 for ultrasound, respectively. In the pair-wise comparisons, ultrasound showed a statistically better specificity than magnetic resonance imaging (0.86 vs. 0.78; p = 0.014) and a statistically better sensitivity than computed tomography (0.88 vs. 0.78; p = 0.030). Conclusion: The present systematic review did not show an obvious superiority of one imaging method. Since their accuracy is not completely overlapping, the possibility of reaching better performance by combining methods should be considered in future prospective trials.",
keywords = "diagnostic tests, hepatocellular carcinoma, systematic review",
author = "I. Floriani and M. D'Onofrio and E. Rulli and Chen, {M. H.} and R. Li and L. Musicco",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1055/s-0032-1330358",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "454--462",
journal = "Ultraschall in der Medizin",
issn = "0172-4614",
publisher = "Georg Thieme Verlag",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance of imaging modalities in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Floriani, I.

AU - D'Onofrio, M.

AU - Rulli, E.

AU - Chen, M. H.

AU - Li, R.

AU - Musicco, L.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose: The recent guidelines published in 2011 suggest the use of only one imaging method for the final imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. To evaluate the methods in the context of the available literature evidence, this systematic review aimed at assessing the relative performance of different imaging techniques currently used in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1996 to June 2011, with no language limitation. Eligible trials had to be conducted in patients with suspicion or diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma; compare at least two of the following imaging modalities: magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasound; have pathological findings as a reference standard. An analysis also including non-comparative studies was performed as a validation of the main comparison results. Results: Of 5,144 screened papers, 16 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the comparative analysis and 65 were eligible for the non-comparative analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity derived by the pooled analysis were 0.78 and 0.77 for computed tomography, 0.84 and 0.84 for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.86 and 0.77 for ultrasound, respectively. In the pair-wise comparisons, ultrasound showed a statistically better specificity than magnetic resonance imaging (0.86 vs. 0.78; p = 0.014) and a statistically better sensitivity than computed tomography (0.88 vs. 0.78; p = 0.030). Conclusion: The present systematic review did not show an obvious superiority of one imaging method. Since their accuracy is not completely overlapping, the possibility of reaching better performance by combining methods should be considered in future prospective trials.

AB - Purpose: The recent guidelines published in 2011 suggest the use of only one imaging method for the final imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. To evaluate the methods in the context of the available literature evidence, this systematic review aimed at assessing the relative performance of different imaging techniques currently used in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from January 1996 to June 2011, with no language limitation. Eligible trials had to be conducted in patients with suspicion or diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma; compare at least two of the following imaging modalities: magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, ultrasound; have pathological findings as a reference standard. An analysis also including non-comparative studies was performed as a validation of the main comparison results. Results: Of 5,144 screened papers, 16 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the comparative analysis and 65 were eligible for the non-comparative analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity derived by the pooled analysis were 0.78 and 0.77 for computed tomography, 0.84 and 0.84 for magnetic resonance imaging and 0.86 and 0.77 for ultrasound, respectively. In the pair-wise comparisons, ultrasound showed a statistically better specificity than magnetic resonance imaging (0.86 vs. 0.78; p = 0.014) and a statistically better sensitivity than computed tomography (0.88 vs. 0.78; p = 0.030). Conclusion: The present systematic review did not show an obvious superiority of one imaging method. Since their accuracy is not completely overlapping, the possibility of reaching better performance by combining methods should be considered in future prospective trials.

KW - diagnostic tests

KW - hepatocellular carcinoma

KW - systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885961640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885961640&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1055/s-0032-1330358

DO - 10.1055/s-0032-1330358

M3 - Article

C2 - 23238800

AN - SCOPUS:84885961640

VL - 34

SP - 454

EP - 462

JO - Ultraschall in der Medizin

JF - Ultraschall in der Medizin

SN - 0172-4614

IS - 5

ER -