Cargando…
Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: For a proper management strategy in patients with locoregionally treated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is essential that the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (LR-TR) has high interreader reliability. We aimed to systematically evaluate t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7913820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33557040 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020237 |
_version_ | 1783656891083128832 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Dong Wook Choi, Sang Hyun Lee, Ji Sung Kim, So Yeon Lee, So Jung Byun, Jae Ho |
author_facet | Kim, Dong Wook Choi, Sang Hyun Lee, Ji Sung Kim, So Yeon Lee, So Jung Byun, Jae Ho |
author_sort | Kim, Dong Wook |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: For a proper management strategy in patients with locoregionally treated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is essential that the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (LR-TR) has high interreader reliability. We aimed to systematically evaluate the interreader reliability of LR-TR and sources of any study heterogeneity. Methods: Original studies reporting the interreader reliability of LR-TR were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 20 September 2020. The pooled kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated using the DerSimonian–Laird random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT)). Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore study heterogeneity. Results: Eight studies with 851 HCCs were finally included. Pooled κ was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58–0.82) for CT/MRI LR-TR, and those of MRI and CT were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.53–0.89) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65–0.78), respectively. Study design (p < 0.001) and type of treatment (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with substantial study heterogeneity. Conclusion: LR-TR showed substantial interreader reliability regardless of the imaging modality. Because of substantial study heterogeneity, which was significantly associated with study design and type of treatment, published values for the interreader reliability of LR-TR should be interpreted with care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7913820 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79138202021-02-28 Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Kim, Dong Wook Choi, Sang Hyun Lee, Ji Sung Kim, So Yeon Lee, So Jung Byun, Jae Ho Diagnostics (Basel) Review Background: For a proper management strategy in patients with locoregionally treated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it is essential that the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (LR-TR) has high interreader reliability. We aimed to systematically evaluate the interreader reliability of LR-TR and sources of any study heterogeneity. Methods: Original studies reporting the interreader reliability of LR-TR were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 20 September 2020. The pooled kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated using the DerSimonian–Laird random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT)). Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore study heterogeneity. Results: Eight studies with 851 HCCs were finally included. Pooled κ was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.58–0.82) for CT/MRI LR-TR, and those of MRI and CT were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.53–0.89) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65–0.78), respectively. Study design (p < 0.001) and type of treatment (p = 0.02) were significantly associated with substantial study heterogeneity. Conclusion: LR-TR showed substantial interreader reliability regardless of the imaging modality. Because of substantial study heterogeneity, which was significantly associated with study design and type of treatment, published values for the interreader reliability of LR-TR should be interpreted with care. MDPI 2021-02-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7913820/ /pubmed/33557040 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020237 Text en © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Kim, Dong Wook Choi, Sang Hyun Lee, Ji Sung Kim, So Yeon Lee, So Jung Byun, Jae Ho Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Interreader Reliability of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System Treatment Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | interreader reliability of liver imaging reporting and data system treatment response: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7913820/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33557040 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11020237 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimdongwook interreaderreliabilityofliverimagingreportinganddatasystemtreatmentresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT choisanghyun interreaderreliabilityofliverimagingreportinganddatasystemtreatmentresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT leejisung interreaderreliabilityofliverimagingreportinganddatasystemtreatmentresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kimsoyeon interreaderreliabilityofliverimagingreportinganddatasystemtreatmentresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT leesojung interreaderreliabilityofliverimagingreportinganddatasystemtreatmentresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT byunjaeho interreaderreliabilityofliverimagingreportinganddatasystemtreatmentresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |