Home
JournalsCollections
For Authors For Reviewers For Editorial Board Members
Article Processing Charges Open Access
Ethics Advertising Policy
Editorial Policy Resource Center
Company Information Contact Us
OPEN ACCESS

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis

  • Yuhui Deng1,2,# ,
  • Jisheng Li3,#,
  • Hui Xu1 ,
  • Ahong Ren1 ,
  • Zhenchang Wang1 ,
  • Dawei Yang1,*  and
  • Zhenghan Yang1,* 
Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology   2022;10(4):642-650

doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2021.00254

Received:

Revised:

Accepted:

Published online:

 Author information

Citation: Deng Y, Li J, Xu H, Ren A, Wang Z, Yang D, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-analysis. J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2022;10(4):642-650. doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2021.00254.

Abstract

Background and Aims

Microvascular invasion (MVI) is a major risk factor for the early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and it seriously worsens the prognosis. Accurate preoperative evaluation of the presence of MVI could greatly benefit the treatment management and prognosis prediction of HCC patients. The study aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a quantitative parameter for the preoperative diagnosis MVI in HCC patients.

Methods

Original articles about diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and/or intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) conducted on a 3.0 or 1.5 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system indexed through January 17, 2021were collected from MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Methodological quality was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) were calculated, and meta-regression analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model through a meta-analysis.

Results

Nine original articles with a total of 988 HCCs were included. Most studies had low bias risk and minimal applicability concerns. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUROC of the ADC value were 73%, 70%, and 0.78, respectively. The time interval between the index test and the reference standard was identified as a possible source of heterogeneity by subgroup meta-regression analysis.

Conclusions

Meta-analysis showed that the ADC value had moderate accuracy for predicting MVI in HCC. The time interval accounted for the heterogeneity.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma, Meta-analysis, Diagnostic accuracy, Diffusion-weighted imaging, Microvascular invasion

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common primary liver malignancies and the third leading cause of tumor-related deaths worldwide.1,2 Surgical resection and transplantation are currently considered the optimal treatments of HCC, and despite consistent improvement in recent decades, both early-stage and long-term prognosis remain poor because of high recurrence rates.3 Studies of tumor characteristics, such as histological grade and tumor size,4,5 have verified that microvascular invasion (MVI) is involved in early recurrence and poor long-term prognosis in HCC patients treated with resection or transplantation.6,7 As preoperative evaluation of MVI is difficult, a noninvasive, highly accurate tool for evaluating the presence/absence of MVI in HCC patients would help to make treatment decisions.

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique that is widely accessible and its high sensitivity for detecting the restriction of water molecule movement, contributes to the imaging of liver lesions, including HCC.8,9 The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value, which reflects the combination of water molecular diffusion and capillary perfusion, has been investigated for lesion characterization, HCC histological grade assessment,9,10–12 and preoperative assessment of MVI in HCC.13–15 The varied results of available studies warrants a pooled analysis. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the ADC value for predicting the presence of MVI in HCC.

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)16 was adopted as a guide for performing the meta-analysis.

Literature search

The PICOS standard was used to guide the search.17 We conducted a comprehensive search for studies on the diagnostic validity of all diffusion-related parameters for the preoperative evaluation of MVI in HCC in Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library until January 17, 2021. EndNote X9 software (Thomson Reuters, NY, USA) was used for efficient filtering. Details of the search strategy are shown in Supplement 1. Additionally, all references shown in the listed literature were manually checked.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows. (1) The diagnostic performance of MVI in HCC was evaluated using the ADC parameters of DWI or intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in the original quantitative study. (2) The data provided by the study were sufficient to construct a diagnostic 2 × 2 table. (3) The article was published in English; and 4) at least 30 HCC patients were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) nonhuman research; and 2) literature published in formats including reviews, patents, guidelines, chapters, case reports, conference abstracts, letters, or editorials.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two observers with more than 6 years of experience in liver imaging performed the data extraction and quality assessment. For any disagreements in the above process, consensus was obtained with the help of a third radiologist with 16 years of liver imaging experience, as needed. The extracted data included basic data (true positives, false negatives, false negatives, and true negatives) and additional data (patient characteristics, imaging characteristics, and study characteristics) for meta-regression.18 If multiple diagnostic performance data were provided in the original study, we chose the best outcome. All extracted data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2016 for further analysis. Quality assessment was performed with Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2).19 The bias risk was rated as low, unclear, or high, and the clinical applicability concern was rated as low, unclear, or high, with converted scores of 1, 2, or 3, respectively.20 In subsequent meta-regression analyses, the total scores of each study served as covariates to quantitatively represent the general risk of bias and applicability.

Pathological MVI in HCC

MVI is defined as the presence of tumors in endothelial cells by microscopy, including the portal vein and hepatic vein.21 In all included studies, MVI was divided into two groups (positive MVI or negative MVI).

Statistical analysis

QUADAS evaluations of the included articles were performed with Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Threshold effect assessment was conducted using Meta-Disc 1.4 software provided by Ramon y Cajal Hospital, Madrid, Spain.22 The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined by STATA 14 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA) software using the MIDAS command.23,24 Both the I2 statistic (I2>50%) and Cochran Q (p<0.05) were used to determine the possible occurrence of between-study heterogeneity.25,26 Meta-regression was conducted to assess study heterogeneity.

Results

Literature search

After a comprehensive search, 435 records were retrieved. Initially, 148 records were removed by the automatic find-duplicate function embedded in Endnote X9 software, and 44 conference abstracts, 21 reviews, five meta-analyses, two case reports, two letters, and two editorials were excluded because their improper publication type. For a more accurate screening, we read the full texts of the remaining 211 records. After excluding seven non-English studies, those without sufficient data to extract, and 191 unrelated studies, nine studies eventually remained (Fig. 1).

Flowchart of study selection.
Fig. 1  Flowchart of study selection.

ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient.

Quality assessment and data extraction

The detailed data of the included articles are shown in Table 113-15,27–32 and Supplement 2, including patient characteristics (country/region, year, average age, number of lesions, average size), research characteristics (research design, number of readers, recruitment methods, time interval between the index test and the reference standard, blindness to the index test during the reference test, blindness to the reference test during the index test), and imaging characteristics (MR manufacturer, MR field, MRI sequence, quantitative parameters, details of b values). The methodologic quality of all studies based on QUADAS-2 is shown in Figure 2. Generally, there was a low bias risk and minimal concern of clinical applicability in most studies. Five studies had an unclear bias risk because it was not certain whether consecutive patients were recruited. Unclear applicability concerns were present in four studies because of the relative simplicity of the patient inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only one study had an unclear bias risk because it was not clear whether the reference results were blinded during the index test. Five studies had an unclear bias risk because they did not report the status of blinding of the index test results during the reference test in the reference standard. Additionally, there were concerns of the applicability of two studies because of insufficient information on pathological MVI. Regarding flow and timing, one study that did not report the interval between the reference standard and MRI examinations, and three with time intervals greater than 1 month were regarded as having an unclear bias risk and a high bias risk, respectively.

Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies

Patient characteristics
Study characteristics
Imaging characteristics
Reference
RegionAge, yearsSize, mmLesions, nStudy designConsecutiveReaders, nBlind 1Blind 2TI (days)Risk scoreApplication scoreSequenceParameterField (T)Manufacturerb-value feature, s/mm2
China51.9763.1135pYes2YesYes1443IVIMADC/D3GE0, 10, 20, 40, 80, 100, 150, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1,000, and 1,200Wei et al.27
Japan66.720.7273RYes2YesUnclear8574DWIADC1.5/3.0Siemens/GE0, 1,000Okamura et al.15
China521994RUnclear2YesUnclear1463DWIADC1.5Siemens0, 500Rao et al.28
Korea5634.0667RUnclear1YesYes4574DWIADC3Siemens50, 400, 800Suh et al.14
China54.1439.43100unclearYesUnclearUnclearUnclearUnclear74DWIADC3GE/Philips0, 100, 600Wang et al.32
China51.5127.941pYes2YesUnclear3053IVIMADC/D3Philips0, 10, 20, 40, 80, 200, 400, 600, 1000Li et al.29
China53.214.4109RUnclear2YesYes1654DWIADC1.5Siemens0, 500Xu et al.13
China5957318RUnclear2YesUnclear765DWIADC1.5GE0, 800Zhao J et al.30
China50.656.751RUnclear2YesYes5873IVIMADC/D3GE0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 1,000Zhao W et al.31
Stacked bar charts of Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS2) scores of methodologic study quality provide an overview of study quality in the whole meta-analysis.
Fig. 2  Stacked bar charts of Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS2) scores of methodologic study quality provide an overview of study quality in the whole meta-analysis.

Diagnosis of MVI in HCC

Overall, the accuracy of the ADC value in predicting the presence of MVI was evaluated in nine studies including 988 HCCs. The details of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were shown in Table 2. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of the ADC value was 0.78 for diagnosing MVI in HCC (Fig. 3). The forest plots showed that the between-study heterogeneities of ADC presented sensitivity (p=0.10, I2=40.64%) and specificity (p <0.01, I2=70.59%, Fig. 4).

Table 2

Diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient value for microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma

Studies, n (patients, n)AUROCSensitivity, % (95% CI)Specificity, % (95% CI)positive likelihood ratio, (95% CI)Negative likelihood ratio, (95% CI)Diagnostic odds ratio, (95% CI)
ADC9 (988)0.78 (0.74, 0.81)0.73 (0.68, 0.78)0.70 (0.62, 0.77)2.4 (2.0, 3.1)0.38 (0.32, 0.46)6 (5, 9)
Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for microvascular invasion (MVI) of hepatocellular carcinomas.
Fig. 3  Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for microvascular invasion (MVI) of hepatocellular carcinomas.
Forest plots of tests.
Fig. 4  Forest plots of tests.

The accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity) of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for microvascular invasion (MVI) of hepatocellular carcinomas.

The Begg’s funnel plot for ADC in predicting MVI (Z=2.40, p=0.016) are presented in Figure 5, which suggests slight asymmetry in the data. Therefore, in evaluating our funnel plots, we can report only that there may have been publication bias, which is difficult to quantify, and that no major publication bias was detected. There was no significant threshold effect (p=1.0) for ADC in diagnosing MVI in HCC.

Begg’s funnel plot for publication bias.
Fig. 5  Begg’s funnel plot for publication bias.

The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for microvascular invasion (MVI) of hepatocellular carcinomas.

Meta-regression

Subgroup meta-regression analyses were performed with the following nine covariates: number of lesions (<90 or ≥90), average age (<54 or ≥54 years), average size (<30 or ≥30 mm), interval between the index test and the reference test (<30 or ≥30 days), blinding of the index test during the reference test (yes or unclear), blinding of the reference test during the index test (yes or unclear), concern of applicability score (<4 or ≥4), risk of bias score (≤6 or >6) and MR parameter (DWI or IVIM). The results are shown in Table 3. The time interval (p<0.01 by the joint model) was a significant cause of heterogeneity. Studies with time intervals ≥ 30 days had significantly lower sensitivity and higher specificity than those with time intervals of <30 days (72% vs. 75% and 70% vs. 72%, respectively, p<0.01). In contrast, there were no sources of heterogeneity for mean age (p=0.21), mean size (p=0.08), number of lesions (p=0.91), blinding of the reference standard during the index test (p=0.70), blinding of the index test during the reference test (p=0.49), QUADAS risk of bias score (p=0.35), QUADAS applicability concern score (p=0.11) and MR sequence (p=0.57).

Table 3

Covariate meta-regression results of apparent diffusion coefficient value for microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma

CovariateSubgroupStudies, npSummary sensitivity, % (95% CI)p1Summary specificity, 5 (95% CI)p2
Age, years<5450.210.77 (0.72, 0.83)0.050.69 (0.59, 0.78)0.05
≥5440.68 (0.61, 0.76)0.72 (0.62, 0.82)
Size, mm<3040.080.79 (0.73, 0.84)0.040.65 (0.55, 0.76)0.01
≥3050.69 (0.62, 0.76)0.74 (0.65, 0.82)
Included lesions, n<9040.910.72 (0.64, 0.80)0.000.70 (0.59, 0.81)0.12
≥9050.74 (0.68, 0.81)0.70 (0.60, 0.80)
Blind to referenceYes80.700.74 (0.68, 0.79)0.180.71 (0.63, 0.78)0.72
Unclear10.71 (0.57, 0.85)0.65 (0.44, 0.86)
Blind to index test, nYes40.490.73 (0.66, 0.80)0.000.66 (0.56, 0.77)0.02
Unclear50.74 (0.67, 0.82)0.73 (0.64, 0.82)
Time interval, days<3040.000.75 (0.68, 0.82)0.030.72 (0.61, 0.83)0.24
≥3040.72 (0.64, 0.80)0.70 (0.58, 0.82)
Risk score≤650.350.75 (0.69, 0.82)0.020.73 (0.63, 0.82)0.32
>640.71 (0.63, 0.78)0.67 (0.56, 0.78)
Applicability concern score<440.110.78 (0.69, 0.87)0.140.74 (0.65, 0.84)0.29
≥450.71 (0.63, 0.78)0.67 (0.58, 0.76)
SequenceDWI60.570.74 (0.68, 0.80)0.030.67 (0.59, 0.75)0.01
IVIM30.72 (0.62, 0.83)0.75 (0.65, 0.86)

In addition, studies with a large number of lesions had the same specificity (70% vs. 70%, p=0.12) and a significantly higher sensitivity (74% vs. 72%, p<0.01) than those with a small number of lesions. Studies with a low risk of bias reported a significantly higher sensitivity than studies with a high risk of bias (75% vs. 71%, p=0.02). Studies with small sample sizes reported a significantly higher sensitivity and a significantly lower specificity (65% vs. 74%, p=0.01) than those with large sizes (79% vs. 69%, p=0.04). Studies with unclear blinding of the index test reported significantly higher sensitivity and specificity than studies with blinding of the index test (74% vs. 73%, p<0.01 and 73% vs. 66%, p=0.02, respectively). Studies using the DWI parameter reported a significantly higher sensitivity and a significantly lower specificity (67% vs. 75%, p=0.01) than those using the IVIM parameter (74% vs. 72%, p=0.03).

Discussion

This meta-analysis included. nine original articles with 988 HCCs and assessed the diagnostic performance of the ADC value for predicting MVI, with a pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of 73%, 70% and 0.78, respectively. Our meta-analysis indicated that the ADC value had moderate accuracy in predicting MVI in HCC, which was consistent with the findings of several high-impact original studies,27–30 with a sensitivity and specificity of 71–76% and 65–66%, respectively. Several hypothetical reasons may contribute to the relation between the ADC value and the MVI status in HCC. First, MVI is more common in HCCs with higher histologic grades,33 and the ADC value has been reported to accurately assess the histologic grade of HCC.18 Therefore, it is possible that the ADC value could be used to predict MVI in HCC. Second, tumor embolism in MVI-positive hepatic vascular branches, such as the portal vein, hepatic vein and intracapsular vessel, can limit the diffusion of water molecules to some extent.34 Additionally, the presence of MVI can further increase the infiltration of tumor cells, provide more nutrients needed for proliferation, increase the tumor-cell density, and further limit the diffusion of water molecules.27 However, because of the intrinsic inability to separate the effects of capillary perfusion and molecular diffusion, the diagnostic performance of the ADC value is not as promising in predicting MVI in HCC.

Several studies have investigated the diagnostic accuracy of other diffusion parameters, including the mean apparent kurtosis coefficient and tissue diffusivity (D-value). Wang et al.35 and Cao, et al.36 found that higher mean kurtosis values were potential predictors of MVI in HCC, with sensitivity, specificity and AUROC values of 70%, 77%, and 0.784 and 68.4%, 75%, and 0.77, respectively, which were comparable to the diagnostic performance of the ADC value calculated in this study. Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI), which reflects the heterogeneity and irregularity of tissue components, is an extension of diffusion tensor imaging for the detection of non-Gaussian water diffusion.37 The higher mean kurtosis values may be caused by a more complex microenvironment with denser cellular structures and more irregular and heterogeneous lesions introduced by MVI, such as neoplastic cells, necrosis, and inflammation.35 In theory, IVIM can distinguish true water molecule diffusion from microcapillary perfusion. Therefore, the true tissue molecular diffusivity (D) calculated by the IVIM technique is more effective than the ADC value in probing the small differences in water molecule diffusion induced by MVI.38,39 To date, three published studies have examined the diffusion parameter of the D-value, and the results are inconsistent.27,29,31 Wei et al.27 found that the D-value was better than the ADC value for assessing MVI in HCC, with sensitivity, specificity and AUROC values of 78.2%, 75%, and 0.815, respectively. Zhao et al.31 showed that the D-value had a moderate diagnostic performance for assessing MVI in HCC, with sensitivity, specificity and AUROC values of 66.7%, 88.9%, and 0.753, respectively. With limited studies and varied results, more studies are needed in the future to evaluate and confirm the diagnostic performance of the D-value and apparent kurtosis coefficient for MVI in HCC.

In addition to quantitative parameters, many qualitative parameters are available for evaluating MVI, such as non-smooth tumor margins, irregular rim-like enhancement in the arterial phase, peritumoral arterial phase hyperenhancement, and peritumoral hepatobiliary phase hypointensity on MRI. In a high-quality meta-analysis, Hong et al.40 summarized multiple MRI features and concluded that rim arterial enhancement, arterial peritumoral enhancement, peritumoral hypointensity in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP), and non-smooth margins were significant predictors of MVI of HCC, with sensitivities and specificities of 36.4% and 87.9%, 49.7% and 81.5%, 44.2% and 91.1%, and 67.1% and 60.7%, respectively. A recent meta-analysis41 of the evaluation of non-smooth tumor margins and peritumoral hypointensity in the HBP to preoperatively diagnose the presence of MVI in HCC obtained similar results with sensitivity, specificity and AUROC values of 73%, 61%, and 0.74 and 43%, 90%, and 0.76, respectively. Those parameters were similar to the ADC value in predicting MVI in HCC with moderate accuracy, but qualitative parameters are subjective. Even for experienced radiologists, there is a difference.42 The ADC value can be quantitative or qualitative. As a quantitative parameter, compared with qualitative parameters, it is not limited by subjective differences of interpretation and has stronger practicability. In addition, the ADC value is one of the most commonly used clinical indicators and can be obtained without the use of contrast agents. Accordingly, we believe this work is necessary and useful, especially for those who are unable to undergo MRI enhancement for many reasons.

Compared with deep learning and radiomics, the diagnostic performance of the ADC value was inferior to that of the fusion-deep supervision net based on ADC, with sensitivity, specificity and AUROC values of 67.06% vs. 75.29%, 70.43% vs. 79.13%, and 71.24 vs. 79.69, respectively.32 Additionally, the diagnostic performance of the ADC value was inferior to that of radiomics models based on MRI. Feng et al.43 found that a radiomics model based on HBP images had a relatively high performance in predicting MVI in HCC, with sensitivity, specificity and AUROC values of 90%, 75%, and 0.83, respectively, in the validation cohort. A recent study44 found that a radiomics model based on DWI combined with multiple phases of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI had a higher performance in diagnosing MVI in HCC, with sensitivity, specificity and AUROC values of 96%, 86%, and 0.918 in the validation cohort. Therefore, the use of deep learning and radiomics can improve the diagnostic performance of MVI in liver cancer and is a direction for future research.

In this study, meta-regression analyses of nine covariates showed that only the time interval was a significant source of heterogeneity. Studies with time intervals <30 days exhibited significantly higher sensitivity and specificity than those with time intervals ≥30 days. The shorter the time interval between MRI examination and surgical resection, the more closely the imaging features reflect the tumor parenchyma, and the better the diagnostic effectiveness. Therefore, an appropriate time interval should be considered in future studies. Additionally, studies with tumor sizes of <30 mm exhibited significantly higher sensitivity and lower specificity than studies with tumors ≥30 mm. Generally, the larger the diameter of HCCs, the greater the possibility of the existence of MVI45–47 and the easier it is to observe the imaging features; thus, the diagnostic efficiency of MVI is better. However, that result was not obtained in the study. A possible reason is that the larger the HCC is, the more prone it is to bleeding and necrosis, which affect the ADC measurement. Meta-regression was conducted for bias risk, and studies with low risk had higher sensitivity than studies with high risk (75% vs. 71%, p=0.02), which showed that improving the quality of test studies is essential. Meta-regression was also conducted for the blind to index test, and studies with unclear blinding had better sensitivity and specificity than those with blinding (74% vs. 73%, p <0.01 and 73% vs. 66%, p=0.02). The measurement bias of the pathological results probably occurred because reviewers had some knowledge of the signal intensity. Meta-regression was also conducted for the number of included lesions, and studies with a large number of lesions had higher sensitivity than those with a small number of lesions (74% vs. 72%, p <0.01), which indicated that increasing the number of samples is essential. Those covariates should be used to reduce heterogeneity as much as possible in further studies.

There were several limitations. First, most of the studies included in the meta-analysis were retrospective, which may cause patient and imaging technique selection biases. Second, we discussed the diagnostic accuracy of the D-value in predicting MVI in HCC in our discussion but did not include it in our meta-analysis because of the limited number of studies. Finally, only original articles in English were included in the meta-analysis. In conclusion, our meta-analysis found that the ADC value had moderate accuracy in noninvasively predicting pathological MVI in HCC. In future studies, artificial intelligence such as radiomics studies and deep learning based on a combination of multiple MRI sequences or more MRI features, including the D-value of IVIM, could be performed to investigate and verify potential improvements for predicting MVI in HCC.

Supporting information

Supplemental file 1

PubMed search strategy.

(DOCX)

Supplemental file 2

Dummy Text.

(DOCX)

Abbreviations

ADC: 

apparent diffusion coefficient

AUROC: 

area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

DWI: 

diffusion-weighted imaging

HCC: 

hepatocellular carcinoma

IVIM: 

intravoxel incoherent motion

MRI: 

Magnetic resonance imaging

MVI: 

Microvascular invasion

QUADAS 2: 

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2

Declarations

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express our enormous appreciation and gratitude to all participants.

Data sharing statement

No additional data are available.

Funding

The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 82071876, 61871276); Beijing Natural Science Foundation (No. 7184199); and Heilongjiang province Science Foundation for Youths (No. QC201807); Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals’ Youth Programme (No.QML20200108).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests related to this publication.

Authors’ contributions

Study concept and design (DY, ZY), acquisition of data (YD, JL), analysis and interpretation of data (DY, ZY, YD, JL), drafting of the manuscript (DY, YD), critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (HX, AR, ZW), administrative, technical, and material support, study supervision (ZW).

References

  1. Golabi P, Fazel S, Otgonsuren M, Sayiner M, Locklear CT, Younossi ZM. Mortality assessment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma according to underlying disease and treatment modalities. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96(9):e5904 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  2. El-Serag HB. Epidemiology of viral hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2012;142(6):1264-1273.e1261 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  3. Iguchi T, Shirabe K, Aishima S, Wang H, Fujita N, Ninomiya M, et al. New Pathologic Stratification of Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Predicting Prognosis After Living-donor Liver Transplantation. Transplantation 2015;99(6):1236-1242 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  4. Imamura H, Matsuyama Y, Tanaka E, Ohkubo T, Hasegawa K, Miyagawa S, et al. Risk factors contributing to early and late phase intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy. J Hepatol 2003;38(2):200-207 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  5. Cucchetti A, Piscaglia F, Caturelli E, Benvegnù L, Vivarelli M, Ercolani G, et al. Comparison of recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after resection in patients with cirrhosis to its occurrence in a surveilled cirrhotic population. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16(2):413-422 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  6. Sumie S, Kuromatsu R, Okuda K, Ando E, Takata A, Fukushima N, et al. Microvascular invasion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and its predictable clinicopathological factors. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15(5):1375-1382 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  7. Oishi K, Itamoto T, Amano H, Fukuda S, Ohdan H, Tashiro H, et al. Clinicopathologic features of poorly differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2007;95(4):311-316 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  8. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(6):1622-1635 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  9. Taouli B, Koh DM. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 2010;254(1):47-66 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  10. Lim KS. Diffusion-weighted MRI of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Clin Radiol 2014;69(1):1-10 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  11. Nishie A, Tajima T, Asayama Y, Ishigami K, Kakihara D, Nakayama T, et al. Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2011;80(2):e29-33 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  12. Mannelli L, Kim S, Hajdu CH, Babb JS, Taouli B. Serial diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Prediction and assessment of response to transarterial chemoembolization. Preliminary experience. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(4):577-582 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  13. Xu P, Zeng M, Liu K, Shan Y, Xu C, Lin J. Microvascular invasion in small hepatocellular carcinoma: is it predictable with preoperative diffusion-weighted imaging?. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29(2):330-336 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  14. Suh YJ, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Park MS, Kim KW. Preoperative prediction of the microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma with diffusion-weighted imaging. Liver Transpl 2012;18(10):1171-1178 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  15. Okamura S, Sumie S, Tonan T, Nakano M, Satani M, Shimose S, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging predicts malignant potential in small hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Liver Dis 2016;48(8):945-952 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  16. Frank RA, Bossuyt PM, McInnes MDF. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. Radiology 2018;289(2):313-314 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  17. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):1 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  18. Yang D, She H, Wang X, Yang Z, Wang Z. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative diffusion parameters in the pathological grading of hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;51(5):1581-1593 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  19. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):529-536 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  20. Yang D, Li D, Li J, Yang Z, Wang Z. Systematic review: The diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for liver fibrosis staging. Eur J Radiol 2020;125:108857 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  21. Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Luong TV, Andreana L, Meyer T, Dhillon AP, Burroughs AK. A systematic review of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic and prognostic variability. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20(1):325-339 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  22. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:31 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  23. Roberts DJ, Chaubey VP, Zygun DA, Lorenzetti D, Faris PD, Ball CG, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomographic angiography for blunt cerebrovascular injury detection in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2013;257(4):621-632 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  24. Vogelgesang F, Schlattmann P, Dewey M. The Evaluation of Bivariate Mixed Models in Meta-analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies with SAS, Stata and R. Methods Inf Med 2018;57(3):111-119 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  25. Melsen WG, Bootsma MC, Rovers MM, Bonten MJ. The effects of clinical and statistical heterogeneity on the predictive values of results from meta-analyses. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20(2):123-129 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  26. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Takwoingi Y, Macaskill P. Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev 2013;2:82 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  27. Wei Y, Huang Z, Tang H, Deng L, Yuan Y, Li J, et al. IVIM improves preoperative assessment of microvascular invasion in HCC. Eur Radiol 2019;29(10):5403-5414 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  28. Rao C, Wang X, Li M, Zhou G, Gu H. Value of T1 mapping on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study. BMC Med Imaging 2020;20(1):43 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  29. Li H, Zhang J, Zheng Z, Guo Y, Chen M, Xie C, et al. Preoperative histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) for predicting microvascular invasion in patients with single hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 2018;105:65-71 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  30. Zhao J, Li X, Zhang K, Yin X, Meng X, Han L, et al. Prediction of microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma with preoperative diffusion-weighted imaging: A comparison of mean and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96(33):e7754 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  31. Zhao W, Liu W, Liu H, Yi X, Hou J, Pei Y, et al. Preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma with IVIM diffusion-weighted MR imaging and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. PLoS One 2018;13(5):e0197488 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  32. Wang G, Jian W, Cen X, Zhang L, Guo H, Liu Z, et al. Prediction of Microvascular Invasion of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Based on Preoperative Diffusion-Weighted MR Using Deep Learning. Acad Radiol 2021;28(Suppl 1):S118-S127 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  33. Pawlik TM, Delman KA, Vauthey JN, Nagorney DM, Ng IO, Ikai I, et al. Tumor size predicts vascular invasion and histologic grade: Implications for selection of surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl 2005;11(9):1086-1092 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  34. Iima M, Le Bihan D. Clinical Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion MR Imaging: Past, Present, and Future. Radiology 2016;278(1):13-32 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  35. Wang WT, Yang L, Yang ZX, Hu XX, Ding Y, Yan X, et al. Assessment of Microvascular Invasion of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging. Radiology 2018;286(2):571-580 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  36. Cao L, Chen J, Duan T, Wang M, Jiang H, Wei Y, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with microvascular invasion and histologic grade. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2019;9(4):590-602 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  37. Rosenkrantz AB, Padhani AR, Chenevert TL, Koh DM, De Keyzer F, Taouli B, et al. Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: Basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42(5):1190-1202 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  38. Guiu B, Cercueil JP. Liver diffusion-weighted MR imaging: the tower of Babel?. Eur Radiol 2011;21(3):463-467 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  39. Chandarana H, Taouli B. Diffusion and perfusion imaging of the liver. Eur J Radiol 2010;76(3):348-358 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  40. Hong SB, Choi SH, Kim SY, Shim JH, Lee SS, Byun JH, et al. MRI Features for Predicting Microvascular Invasion of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Liver Cancer 2021;10(2):94-106 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  41. Deng Y, Yang D, Xu H, Ren A, Yang Z. Diagnostic performance of imaging features in the HBP of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI for microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol 2021:2841851211038806 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  42. Min JH, Lee MW, Park HS, Lee DH, Park HJ, Lim S, et al. Interobserver Variability and Diagnostic Performance of Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MRI for Predicting Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Radiology 2020;297(3):573-581 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  43. Feng ST, Jia Y, Liao B, Huang B, Zhou Q, Li X, et al. Preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular cancer: a radiomics model using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 2019;29(9):4648-4659 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  44. Chong HH, Yang L, Sheng RF, Yu YL, Wu DJ, Rao SX, et al. Multi-scale and multi-parametric radiomics of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI predicts microvascular invasion and outcome in patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 5 cm. Eur Radiol 2021;31(7):4824-4838 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  45. Kim BK, Han KH, Park YN, Park MS, Kim KS, Choi JS, et al. Prediction of microvascular invasion before curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2008;97(3):246-252 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  46. Kaibori M, Ishizaki M, Matsui K, Kwon AH. Predictors of microvascular invasion before hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2010;102(5):462-468 View Article PubMed/NCBI
  47. Eguchi S, Takatsuki M, Hidaka M, Soyama A, Tomonaga T, Muraoka I, et al. Predictor for histological microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma: a lesson from 229 consecutive cases of curative liver resection. World J Surg 2010;34(5):1034-1038 View Article PubMed/NCBI