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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Dong Wook, Choi, Sang Hyun, Lee, Ji Sung, Kim, So Yeon, Lee, So Jung, Byun, Jae Ho
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