Inter-reader Agreement for CT/MRI LI-RADS Category M Imaging Features: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Dong Hwan Kim, S. Choi
{"title":"Inter-reader Agreement for CT/MRI LI-RADS Category M Imaging Features: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Dong Hwan Kim, S. Choi","doi":"10.17998/jlc.2024.04.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Backgrounds/Aims\nTo systematically evaluate inter-reader agreement in the assessment of individual Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) imaging features in computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) LI-RADS v2018, and to explore the causes of poor agreement in LR-M assignment.\n\n\nMethods\nOriginal studies reporting inter-reader agreement for LR-M features on multiphasic CT or MRI were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The pooled kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. Subgroup meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the study heterogeneity.\n\n\nResults\nIn total, 24 eligible studies with 5,163 hepatic observations were included. The pooled κ values were 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.78) for rim arterial phase hyperenhancement, 0.52 (0.39-0.65) for peripheral washout, 0.60 (0.50-0.70) for delayed central enhancement, 0.68 (0.57-0.78) for targetoid restriction, 0.74 (0.65-0.83) for targetoid transitional phase/hepatobiliary phase appearance, 0.64 (0.49-0.78) for infiltrative appearance, 0.49 (0.30-0.68) for marked diffusion restriction, and 0.61 (0.48-0.73) for necrosis or severe ischemia. Substantial study heterogeneity was observed for all LR-M features (Cochran's Q test: p < 0.01; I2 ≥ 89.2%). Studies with a mean observation size of <3 cm, those performed using 1.5-T MRI, and those with multiple image readers, were significantly associated with poor agreement of LR-M features.\n\n\nConclusions\nThe agreement for peripheral washout and marked diffusion restriction was limited. The LI-RADS should focus on improving the agreement of LR-M features.","PeriodicalId":94087,"journal":{"name":"Journal of liver cancer","volume":"340 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of liver cancer","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17998/jlc.2024.04.05","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgrounds/Aims To systematically evaluate inter-reader agreement in the assessment of individual Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) imaging features in computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) LI-RADS v2018, and to explore the causes of poor agreement in LR-M assignment. Methods Original studies reporting inter-reader agreement for LR-M features on multiphasic CT or MRI were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The pooled kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics. Subgroup meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the study heterogeneity. Results In total, 24 eligible studies with 5,163 hepatic observations were included. The pooled κ values were 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.78) for rim arterial phase hyperenhancement, 0.52 (0.39-0.65) for peripheral washout, 0.60 (0.50-0.70) for delayed central enhancement, 0.68 (0.57-0.78) for targetoid restriction, 0.74 (0.65-0.83) for targetoid transitional phase/hepatobiliary phase appearance, 0.64 (0.49-0.78) for infiltrative appearance, 0.49 (0.30-0.68) for marked diffusion restriction, and 0.61 (0.48-0.73) for necrosis or severe ischemia. Substantial study heterogeneity was observed for all LR-M features (Cochran's Q test: p < 0.01; I2 ≥ 89.2%). Studies with a mean observation size of <3 cm, those performed using 1.5-T MRI, and those with multiple image readers, were significantly associated with poor agreement of LR-M features. Conclusions The agreement for peripheral washout and marked diffusion restriction was limited. The LI-RADS should focus on improving the agreement of LR-M features.
CT/MRI LI-RADS M 类成像特征的读片者间一致性:系统回顾和元分析。
背景/目的系统地评估计算机断层扫描/磁共振成像(CT/MRI)LI-RADS v2018中单个肝脏成像报告和数据系统(LI-RADS)M类(LR-M)成像特征评估的阅片者之间的一致性,并探讨LR-M分配一致性差的原因。方法使用MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库确定了报告多相CT或MRI上LR-M特征阅片者之间一致性的原创研究。使用 DerSimonian-Laird 随机效应模型计算了汇总卡帕系数 (κ)。异质性采用 Cochran's Q 检验和 I2 统计量进行评估。结果共纳入了 24 项符合条件的研究,共观察到 5,163 个肝脏病例。汇总的κ值分别为:边缘动脉期高增强 0.72(95% 置信区间,0.65-0.78);外周冲洗 0.52(0.39-0.65);延迟中心增强 0.60(0.50-0.70);靶样受限 0.68(0.57-0.78);外周冲洗 0.52(0.39-0.65);延迟中心增强 0.60(0.50-0.70);靶样受限 0.68(0.57-0.78);边缘动脉期高增强 0.72(95% 置信区间,0.65-0.78)。74(0.65-0.83),浸润性外观为 0.64(0.49-0.78),明显弥散受限为 0.49(0.30-0.68),坏死或严重缺血为 0.61(0.48-0.73)。所有 LR-M 特征的研究均存在大量异质性(Cochran's Q 检验:P < 0.01;I2 ≥ 89.2%)。平均观察尺寸小于 3 厘米的研究、使用 1.5-T MRI 进行的研究以及有多个图像阅读器的研究与 LR-M 特征的一致性差有显著关联。LI-RADS应着重提高LR-M特征的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信