21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology

      Submit here before May 31, 2024

      About Digestion: 3.2 Impact Factor I 6.4 CiteScore I 0.914 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Reflects Tumor Grading and Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

      meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: To date, there are inconsistent data about relationships between diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and tumor grading/microvascular invasion (MVI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our purpose was to systematize the reported results regarding the role of DWI in prediction of tumor grading/MVI in HCC. Method: MEDLINE library, Scopus, and Embase data bases were screened up to December 2019. Overall, 29 studies with 2,715 tumors were included into the analysis. There were 20 studies regarding DWI and tumor grading, 8 studies about DWI and MVI, and 1 study investigated DWI, tumor grading, and MVI in HCC. Results: In 21 studies (1,799 tumors), mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values (ADC<sub>mean</sub>) were used for distinguishing HCCs. ADC<sub>mean</sub> of G1–3 lesions overlapped significantly. In 4 studies (461 lesions), minimum ADC (ADC<sub>min</sub>) was used. ADC<sub>min</sub> values in G1/2 lesions were over 0.80 × 10<sup>−3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s and in G3 tumors below 0.80 × 10<sup>−3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s. In 4 studies (241 tumors), true diffusion ( D) was reported. A significant overlapping of D values between G1, G2, and G3 groups was found. ADC<sub>mean</sub> and MVI were analyzed in 9 studies (1,059 HCCs). ADC<sub>mean</sub> values of MIV+/MVI− lesions overlapped significantly. ADC<sub>min</sub> was used in 4 studies (672 lesions). ADC<sub>min</sub> values of MVI+ tumors were in the area under 1.00 × 10<sup>−3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s. In 3 studies (227 tumors), D was used. Also, D values of MVI+ lesions were predominantly in the area under 1.00 × 10<sup>−3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s. Conclusion: ADC<sub>min</sub> reflects tumor grading, and ADC<sub>min</sub> and D predict MVI in HCC. Therefore, these DWI parameters should be estimated for every HCC lesion for pretreatment tumor stratification. ADC<sub>mean</sub> cannot predict tumor grading/MVI in HCC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                LIC
                LIC
                10.1159/issn.1664-5553
                Liver Cancer
                S. Karger AG
                2235-1795
                1664-5553
                2021
                February 2021
                27 January 2021
                : 10
                : 1
                : 10-24
                Affiliations
                [_a] aDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany
                [_b] bInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Informatics, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany
                Author notes
                *Alexey Surov, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ott-Von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger St., 44, DE–39112 Magdeburg (Germany), alexey.surov@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
                Article
                511384 Liver Cancer 2021;10:10–24
                10.1159/000511384
                33708636
                4c1219e2-00cc-4738-b0a8-17176053d7d8
                © 2021 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel

                This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes as well as any distribution of modified material requires written permission. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 24 April 2020
                : 06 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 9, Tables: 2, Pages: 15
                Categories
                Meta-Analysis

                Oncology & Radiotherapy,Gastroenterology & Hepatology,Surgery,Nutrition & Dietetics,Internal medicine
                Hepatocellular carcinoma,Grading,Microvascular invasion,Diffusion-weighted imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content149

                Cited by20

                Most referenced authors1,075