Ling Zhang1, Xian Yu2, Lei Huo3, Lun Lu3, Xinpeng Pan3, Ningyang Jia4, Xinxiang Fan5, Giovanni Morana6, Luigi Grazioli7, Guenther Schneider8. 1. Department of Radiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China. 2. Department of gastrointestinal surgery, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital & Chongqing Cancer Institute & Chongqing Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China. jianingyang6@163.com. 5. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. fanxinx3@mail.sysu.edu.cn. 6. Department of Radiology, Ospedale Ca' Foncello, Treviso, Italy. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Brescia, Ospedale "Spedali Civili", Brescia, Italy. 8. Department of Radiology, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg, Saar, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of gadobenate-enhanced MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search (EMBASE, PubMed) was performed to identify relevant articles up to December 2017. Studies eligible for inclusion were performed using appropriate methodology with complete verification by means of histopathology, intraoperative observation and/or follow-up, and sufficient information to permit determination of true-positive (TP), false-negative (FN), and false-positive (FP) values. Sources of bias were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. An inverse variance-weighted random-effects model was used to obtain sensitivity and PPV estimates. Information was analyzed and presented using Cochran's Q statistic, funnel plots, and modified Deeks' analysis. RESULTS: Ten articles (256 patients, 562 metastases) were included. Sensitivity estimates for pre-contrast (unenhanced) imaging, gadobenate-enhanced dynamic imaging, and combined unenhanced, dynamic, and delayed hepatobiliary phase imaging for detecting liver metastases on a per-lesion basis were 77.8% (95% CI 71.4-84.3%, 7 assessments), 88.1% (95% CI, 84.0-92.2%, 13 assessments), and 95.1% (95% CI 93.1-97.1%, 15 assessments), respectively. The addition of hepatobiliary phase images significantly improved the detection of liver metastases. The overall PPV was 90.9% (95% CI 86.6-95.1%, 11 assessments). Deeks' funnel analysis revealed no association between sample size and sensitivity (β = 0.02, p = 0.814) indicating no significant publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Gadobenate-enhanced MR imaging has high sensitivity and PPV for the detection of liver metastases on a per-lesion basis. The sensitivity and PPV for detection is comparable to reported values for the pure liver-specific agent gadoxetate. KEY POINTS: • Gadobenate dimeglumine is a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent that permits acquisition of contrast-enhanced liver images during the immediate post-injection dynamic phase, like any extracellular agent, and in the delayed hepatobiliary phase, after specific uptake by the hepatocytes. • The hepatobiliary phase improves detection of liver metastases when compared either to pre-contrast unenhanced images alone or to pre-contrast + gadobenate-enhanced dynamic phase images. • The meta-analysis showed an overall sensitivity of 95.1% and PPV of 90.9% of gadobenate-enhanced MRI for the detection of metastases, when based on the evaluation of all available acquisitions.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of gadobenate-enhanced MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search (EMBASE, PubMed) was performed to identify relevant articles up to December 2017. Studies eligible for inclusion were performed using appropriate methodology with complete verification by means of histopathology, intraoperative observation and/or follow-up, and sufficient information to permit determination of true-positive (TP), false-negative (FN), and false-positive (FP) values. Sources of bias were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. An inverse variance-weighted random-effects model was used to obtain sensitivity and PPV estimates. Information was analyzed and presented using Cochran's Q statistic, funnel plots, and modified Deeks' analysis. RESULTS: Ten articles (256 patients, 562 metastases) were included. Sensitivity estimates for pre-contrast (unenhanced) imaging, gadobenate-enhanced dynamic imaging, and combined unenhanced, dynamic, and delayed hepatobiliary phase imaging for detecting liver metastases on a per-lesion basis were 77.8% (95% CI 71.4-84.3%, 7 assessments), 88.1% (95% CI, 84.0-92.2%, 13 assessments), and 95.1% (95% CI 93.1-97.1%, 15 assessments), respectively. The addition of hepatobiliary phase images significantly improved the detection of liver metastases. The overall PPV was 90.9% (95% CI 86.6-95.1%, 11 assessments). Deeks' funnel analysis revealed no association between sample size and sensitivity (β = 0.02, p = 0.814) indicating no significant publication bias. CONCLUSIONS:Gadobenate-enhanced MR imaging has high sensitivity and PPV for the detection of liver metastases on a per-lesion basis. The sensitivity and PPV for detection is comparable to reported values for the pure liver-specific agent gadoxetate. KEY POINTS: • Gadobenate dimeglumine is a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent that permits acquisition of contrast-enhanced liver images during the immediate post-injection dynamic phase, like any extracellular agent, and in the delayed hepatobiliary phase, after specific uptake by the hepatocytes. • The hepatobiliary phase improves detection of liver metastases when compared either to pre-contrast unenhanced images alone or to pre-contrast + gadobenate-enhanced dynamic phase images. • The meta-analysis showed an overall sensitivity of 95.1% and PPV of 90.9% of gadobenate-enhanced MRI for the detection of metastases, when based on the evaluation of all available acquisitions.
Authors: L Grazioli; G Morana; R Caudana; A Benetti; N Portolani; G Talamini; R Colombari; G Pirovano; M A Kirchin; A Spinazzi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Harmeet Kaur; Nicole M Hindman; Waddah B Al-Refaie; Hina Arif-Tiwari; Brooks D Cash; Victoria Chernyak; James Farrell; Joseph R Grajo; Jeanne M Horowitz; Michelle M McNamara; Richard B Noto; Aliya Qayyum; Tasneem Lalani; Ihab R Kamel Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Giovanni Morana; Luigi Grazioli; Miles A Kirchin; Maria Pia Bondioni; Niccolò Faccioli; Alessandro Guarise; Günther Schneider Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Thomas D Vreugdenburg; Ning Ma; Joanna K Duncan; Dagmara Riitano; Alun L Cameron; Guy J Maddern Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.571