Original studies comparing the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were systematically identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI were calculated using a bivariate-random-effects model. Subgroup-analyses were conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to different variables. Meta-regression analysis was employed to explore potential sources of study heterogeneity.
A total of 15 eligible studies encompassing 803 patients and 1018 lesions were included. Comparative analysis revealed no significant difference between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI in the overall pooled sensitivity (87% vs. 79%) and specificity (92% vs. 96%) for the detection of residual or recurrent HCC after LRT (P = 0.41), with comparable areas under the HSROC of 0.95 and 0.92. Subgroup analyses indicated no significant diagnostic performance differences between ECA-MRI and EOB-MRI according to study design, type of LRT, most common etiology of liver disease, baseline lesion size, time of post-treated examination and MRI field strength (All P > 0.05).
ECA-MRI exhibited overall comparable diagnostic performance to EOB-MRI in assessing residual or recurrent HCC after LRT.
方法:比较ECA-MRI和EOB-MRI的诊断性能的原始研究是通过PubMed中的全面搜索系统确定的,EMBASE,Cochrane图书馆和WebofScience数据库。使用双变量随机效应模型计算ECA-MRI和EOB-MRI的合并敏感性和特异性。根据不同的变量进行亚组分析以比较ECA-MRI和EOB-MRI的诊断性能。采用Meta回归分析探讨研究异质性的潜在来源。
结果:共纳入15项符合条件的研究,包括803例患者和1018个病灶。比较分析显示,ECA-MRI和EOB-MRI在总体合并敏感性方面没有显着差异(87%vs.79%)和特异性(92%与96%)用于LRT后残留或复发的HCC的检测(P=0.41),HSROC为0.95和0.92以下的可比区域。亚组分析表明,根据研究设计,ECA-MRI和EOB-MRI之间的诊断性能无显著差异。轻轨类型,肝病最常见的病因,基线病变大小,治疗后检查时间和MRI场强(均P>0.05)。
结论:ECA-MRI在评估LRT后残留或复发的HCC方面表现出与EOB-MRI相当的总体诊断性能。