TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic Performance of CT/MRI LI-RADS Version 2018 Major Feature Combinations
T2 - Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis
AU - Adamo, Robert G.
AU - van der Pol, Christian B.
AU - Alabousi, Mostafa
AU - Lam, Eric
AU - Salameh, Jean Paul
AU - Abedrabbo, Nicole
AU - Lerner, Emily
AU - Naringrekar, Haresh
AU - Bashir, Mustafa R.
AU - Costa, Andreu F.
AU - Osman, Hoda
AU - Ansari, Danyaal
AU - Levis, Brooke
AU - Polikoff, Adam
AU - Furlan, Alessandro
AU - Tang, An
AU - Kierans, Andrea S.
AU - Singal, Amit G.
AU - Arvind, Ashwini
AU - Alhasan, Ayman
AU - Allen, Brian C.
AU - Reiner, Caecilia S.
AU - Clarke, Christopher
AU - Ludwig, Daniel R.
AU - Telli, Federico Diaz
AU - Piñero, Federico
AU - Rosiak, Grzegorz
AU - Jiang, Hanyu
AU - Kwon, Heejin
AU - Wei, Hong
AU - Kang, Hyo Jin
AU - Joo, Ijin
AU - Hwang, Jeong Ah
AU - Min, Ji Hye
AU - Song, Ji Soo
AU - Wang, Jin
AU - Podgórska, Joanna
AU - Eisenbrey, John R.
AU - Bartnik, Krzysztof
AU - Chen, Li Da
AU - Burgio, Marco Dioguardi
AU - Ronot, Maxime
AU - Cerny, Milena
AU - Seo, Nieun
AU - Rao, Sheng Xiang
AU - Cannella, Roberto
AU - Choi, Sang Hyun
AU - Fraum, Tyler J.
AU - Wang, Wentao
AU - Jeong, Woo Kyoung
AU - Jing, Xiang
AU - Kim, Yeun Yoon
AU - McInnes, Matthew D.F.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© RSNA, 2025.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Background: The CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) diagnostic algorithm classifies liver observations in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using imaging features. However, data regarding the diagnostic performance of specific LI-RADS major feature combinations is limited. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to establish the positive predictive values (PPVs) of LIRADS major feature combinations using CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2018 in patients at risk for HCC. Materials and Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Scopus were searched for studies published from January 2014 to February 2023. Studies reporting HCC percentages for LI-RADS categories in patients at high risk for HCC were included. A one-stage random-effects IPD meta-analysis was used to calculate the PPV for HCC diagnosis and 95% CIs of major feature combinations. Wald test was used to compare combinations. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2, known as QUADAS-2 (protocol: https://osf.io/ah5kn). Results: Forty-six studies including 6765 patients (mean age, 59 years ± 10.69 [SD]; 75% male patients [5081 of 6765]; age range, 18–93 years) with 7500 liver observations were analyzed. High RoB in at least one domain was found in 80% of studies (37 of 46). The pooled PPV estimate for major feature combinations was 58.28% in LR-3 (95% CI: 44.00, 71.29), 80.82% in LR-4 (95% CI: 71.04, 87.86), and 95.81% in LR-5 (95% CI: 91.06, 98.09). The majority of LI-RADS major feature combinations had PPVs that did not differ from others within the same category, supporting the current categorization (P value ranges: LR-3, .17–.73; LR-4, .10 to >.99; LR-5, .08 to >.99). Notably, five major feature combinations differed from the pooled PPV of the LR category. LR-3 was lower without nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) measuring smaller than 20 mm without additional major features (14.81%; 95% CI: 6.35, 30.85; P < .001), and higher with APHE measuring 10–19 mm without additional major features (68.33%; 95% CI: 53.94, 79.90; P = .01). LR-4 was lower without APHE measuring 20 mm or larger with enhancing capsule (50.81%; 95% CI: 28.92, 72.39; P = .009). LR-5 was lower with APHE measuring 10–19 mm with threshold growth (74.40%; 95% CI: 51.06, 89.00; P < .001), and with APHE measuring 20 mm or larger with threshold growth (82.35%; 95% CI: 57.29, 94.20; P = .02). Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that most major feature combinations in the same CT/MRI LI-RADS category had similar PPVs for HCC in patients at high risk for HCC, with the exception of five combinations within LR-3 through LR-5.
AB - Background: The CT/MRI Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) diagnostic algorithm classifies liver observations in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using imaging features. However, data regarding the diagnostic performance of specific LI-RADS major feature combinations is limited. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to establish the positive predictive values (PPVs) of LIRADS major feature combinations using CT/MRI LI-RADS version 2018 in patients at risk for HCC. Materials and Methods: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Scopus were searched for studies published from January 2014 to February 2023. Studies reporting HCC percentages for LI-RADS categories in patients at high risk for HCC were included. A one-stage random-effects IPD meta-analysis was used to calculate the PPV for HCC diagnosis and 95% CIs of major feature combinations. Wald test was used to compare combinations. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2, known as QUADAS-2 (protocol: https://osf.io/ah5kn). Results: Forty-six studies including 6765 patients (mean age, 59 years ± 10.69 [SD]; 75% male patients [5081 of 6765]; age range, 18–93 years) with 7500 liver observations were analyzed. High RoB in at least one domain was found in 80% of studies (37 of 46). The pooled PPV estimate for major feature combinations was 58.28% in LR-3 (95% CI: 44.00, 71.29), 80.82% in LR-4 (95% CI: 71.04, 87.86), and 95.81% in LR-5 (95% CI: 91.06, 98.09). The majority of LI-RADS major feature combinations had PPVs that did not differ from others within the same category, supporting the current categorization (P value ranges: LR-3, .17–.73; LR-4, .10 to >.99; LR-5, .08 to >.99). Notably, five major feature combinations differed from the pooled PPV of the LR category. LR-3 was lower without nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) measuring smaller than 20 mm without additional major features (14.81%; 95% CI: 6.35, 30.85; P < .001), and higher with APHE measuring 10–19 mm without additional major features (68.33%; 95% CI: 53.94, 79.90; P = .01). LR-4 was lower without APHE measuring 20 mm or larger with enhancing capsule (50.81%; 95% CI: 28.92, 72.39; P = .009). LR-5 was lower with APHE measuring 10–19 mm with threshold growth (74.40%; 95% CI: 51.06, 89.00; P < .001), and with APHE measuring 20 mm or larger with threshold growth (82.35%; 95% CI: 57.29, 94.20; P = .02). Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that most major feature combinations in the same CT/MRI LI-RADS category had similar PPVs for HCC in patients at high risk for HCC, with the exception of five combinations within LR-3 through LR-5.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105008105052
U2 - 10.1148/radiol.243450
DO - 10.1148/radiol.243450
M3 - Article
C2 - 40492918
AN - SCOPUS:105008105052
SN - 0033-8419
VL - 315
JO - Radiology
JF - Radiology
IS - 3
M1 - e243450
ER -