Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Wu, Yingyi [1 ]
Xia, Chunchao [1 ]
Chen, Jie [1 ]
Qin, Qin [1 ]
Ye, Zheng [1 ]
Song, Bin [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Sichuan Univ, West China Hosp, Dept Radiol, 37 Guoxue Alley, Chengdu 610041, Peoples R China
[2] Sanya Peoples Hosp, Dept Radiol, Sanya, Hainan, Peoples R China
基金
中国博士后科学基金;
关键词
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Magnetic resonance imaging; Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography; Meta-analysis;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-023-04064-z
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PurposeTo compare the diagnostic ability between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in distinguishing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsOriginal studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and CEUS in differentiating ICC from HCC were identified in PubMed and EMBASE databases. Histopathological examination was used as the reference standard for tumor diagnosis. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 scale. Data were extracted to calculate the pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) using a bivariate random-effects model, as well as the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and investigation of publication bias were also performed.ResultsA total of 26 studies with 28 data subsets (18 on MRI, 10 on CEUS) were included, consisting of 4169 patients with 1422 ICC lesions and 2747 HCC lesions. Most MRI studies were performed at 3T with hepatobiliary agents, and most CEUS studies used SonoVue as the contrast agent. In MRI, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC in distinguishing ICC from HCC were 0.81 (0.79, 0.84), 0.90 (0.88, 0.91), 41.47 (24.07, 71.44), and 0.93 (0.90, 0.96), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC of CEUS were 0.88 (0.84, 0.90), 0.80 (0.78, 0.83), 42.06 (12.38, 133.23), and 0.93 (0.87, 0.99), respectively. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis demonstrated significant heterogeneity among the studies associated with the type of contrast agent in MRI studies. No publication bias was found.ConclusionBoth MRI and CEUS showed excellent diagnostic performance in differentiating ICC from HCC. CEUS showed higher pooled sensitivity and MRI showed higher pooled specificity.
引用
收藏
页码:34 / 48
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] DIAGNOSTIC VALUE OF CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING FOR FOCAL LIVER LESIONS: A META-ANALYSIS
    Xie, Limei
    Guang, Yang
    Ding, Hailong
    Cai, Ailu
    Huang, Ying
    ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 2011, 37 (06): : 854 - 861
  • [32] Diagnostic value of liver contrast-enhanced ultrasound in early hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Zhilan
    Ma, Chunyan
    Luo, Yanbing
    JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 14 (02) : 626 - 635
  • [33] The diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography for pancreatic carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Yan, Xiaoyi
    Lv, Ke
    Xiao, Mengsu
    Tan, Li
    Gui, Yang
    Zhang, Jing
    Chen, Xueqi
    Jia, Wanying
    Li, Jinglin
    TRANSLATIONAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2022, : 3645 - 3656
  • [34] Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis
    Guo, Jin
    Seo, Youngkwon
    Ren, Shuo
    Hong, Sunwoo
    Lee, Dongki
    Kim, Soyoun
    Jiang, Yuanyuan
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2016, 41 (10) : 1960 - 1972
  • [35] Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in detecting hepatocellular carcinoma: direct comparison and a meta-analysis
    Jin Guo
    Youngkwon Seo
    Shuo Ren
    Sunwoo Hong
    Dongki Lee
    Soyoun Kim
    Yuanyuan Jiang
    Abdominal Radiology, 2016, 41 : 1960 - 1972
  • [36] Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Controversy over the ASSLD Guideline
    Guo, Le-Hang
    Xu, Hui-Xiong
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 2015
  • [37] Parametric imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic liver cancer
    Yue, Wen-Wen
    Wang, Shuo
    Xu, Hui-Xiong
    Sun, Li-Ping
    Guo, Le-Hang
    Bo, Xiao-Wan
    Li, Xiao-Long
    Zhao, Chong-Ke
    Wang, Dan
    Liu, Bo-Ji
    CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION, 2016, 64 (02) : 177 - 188
  • [38] Contrast-enhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis
    Shin, Jaeseung
    Lee, Sunyoung
    Bae, Heejin
    Chung, Yong Eun
    Choi, Jin-Young
    Huh, Yong-Min
    Park, Mi-Suk
    LIVER INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 40 (10) : 2345 - 2352
  • [39] Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging features and clinical characteristics of combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: comparison with hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma
    Zhang, Hai-Chun
    Zhu, Ting
    Hu, Rong-Fei
    Wu, Long
    ULTRASONOGRAPHY, 2020, 39 (04) : 356 - 366
  • [40] A multi-parameter intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma scoring system based on modified contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS M criteria for differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma
    Li-Fan Wang
    Xin Guan
    Yu-Ting Shen
    Bo-Yang Zhou
    Yi-Kang Sun
    Xiao-Long Li
    Hao-Hao Yin
    Dan Lu
    Xin Ye
    Xin-Yuan Hu
    Dao-Hui Yang
    Han-Sheng Xia
    Xi Wang
    Qing Lu
    Hong Han
    Hui-Xiong Xu
    Chong-Ke Zhao
    Abdominal Radiology, 2024, 49 : 458 - 470