Skip to main content

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Oncol.
Sec. Gastrointestinal Cancers: Hepato Pancreatic Biliary Cancers
Volume 14 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1510296
This article is part of the Research Topic Liver Cancer Awareness Month 2024: Current Progress and Future Prospects on Advances in Primary Liver Cancer Investigation and Treatment View all 4 articles

Application value of different imaging methods in the early diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis

Provisionally accepted
Jian Dong Jian Dong 1Zhen Wang Zhen Wang 1Si-Rui Wang Si-Rui Wang 1Huan Zhao Huan Zhao 1Jun Li Jun Li 1,2*Ting Ma Ting Ma 1*
  • 1 First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China
  • 2 NHC Key Laboratory of Prevention and Treatment of Central Asia High Incidence Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, Xinjiang Uyghur Region, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Objective: To determine the diagnostic value of ultrasound, multi-phase enhanced computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging of small hepatocellular carcinoma.Methods: Experimental studies on diagnosing small hepatocellular carcinoma in four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, were comprehensively searched from October 2007 to October 2024. Relevant diagnostic accuracy data were extracted and a Bayesian model that combined direct and indirect evidence was used for analysis.Results: 16 original studies were included and data from 2,447 patients were collated to assess the diagnostic value of 10 different methods. The methodological quality of the included studies was good and there was no obvious publication bias. The pooled DOR of all diagnostic methods was 19.61, which was statistically significant (I 2 = 76.0%, P < 0.01, 95% CI:13.30 -28.92). Normal US + CEUS + ultrasonic elastic imaging had the highest specificity (92.9), accuracy (93.6), and positive predictive value (94.4). Unenhanced MRI + Contrast-enhanced MRI had the highest sensitivity (96.6) and negative predictive value (96.6), but specificity (12.5) and positive predictive value (34.4) were extremely poor. Contrast-enhanced MRI had the highest diagnostic value in individual imaging methods (sensitivity: 66, specificity: 55.5, accuracy: 67.9, positive predictive value: 64.4, negative predictive value: 66.5). There was significant inconsistency and high heterogeneity in this study.

    Keywords: Small hepatocellular carcinoma, Multiple diagnostic methods, Network meta-analysis, ultrasound, 诊断成像

    Received: 12 Oct 2024; Accepted: 09 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Dong, Wang, Wang, Zhao, Li and Ma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Jun Li, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China
    Ting Ma, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.