We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of hepatocyte-specific gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) enhanced MR imaging and contrast enhanced CT for the detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
International Journal of Colorectal Disease 2016 November
PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and impact on patient management of hepatocyte-specific gadoxetic acid enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (GA-MRI) compared to contrast enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in patients with liver metastases.
METHOD: Four biomedical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, York CRD) were searched from January 1991 to February 2016. Studies investigating the accuracy or management impact of GA-MRI compared to CE-CT in patients with known or suspected liver metastases were included. Bias was evaluated using QUADAS-II. Univariate meta-analysis of sensitivity ratios (RR) were conducted in the absence of heterogeneity, calculated using I (2) , Tau values (τ) and prediction intervals.
RESULTS: Nine diagnostic accuracy studies (537 patients with 1216 lesions) and four change in management studies (488 patients with 281 lesions) were included. Per-lesion sensitivity and specificity estimates for GA-MRI ranged from 86.9-100.0 % and 80.2-98.0 %, respectively, compared to 51.8-84.6 % and 77.2-98.0 % for CE-CT. Meta-analysis found GA-MRI to be significantly more sensitive than CE-CT (RR = 1.29, 95 % CI = 1.18-1.40, P < 0.001), with equivalent specificity (RR = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.910-1.042, P = 0.44). The largest difference was observed for lesions smaller than 10 mm for which GA-MRI was significantly more sensitive (RR = 2.21, 95 % CI = 1.47-3.32, P < 0.001) but less specific (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.87-0.98, P = 0.008). GA-MRI affected clinical management in 26 of 155 patients (16.8 %) who had a prior CE-CT; however, no studies investigated the consequences of using GA-MRI instead of CE-CT.
CONCLUSION: GA-MRI is significantly more sensitive than CE-CT for detecting liver metastases, which leads to a modest impact on patient management in the context of an equivocal CE-CT result.
METHOD: Four biomedical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, York CRD) were searched from January 1991 to February 2016. Studies investigating the accuracy or management impact of GA-MRI compared to CE-CT in patients with known or suspected liver metastases were included. Bias was evaluated using QUADAS-II. Univariate meta-analysis of sensitivity ratios (RR) were conducted in the absence of heterogeneity, calculated using I (2) , Tau values (τ) and prediction intervals.
RESULTS: Nine diagnostic accuracy studies (537 patients with 1216 lesions) and four change in management studies (488 patients with 281 lesions) were included. Per-lesion sensitivity and specificity estimates for GA-MRI ranged from 86.9-100.0 % and 80.2-98.0 %, respectively, compared to 51.8-84.6 % and 77.2-98.0 % for CE-CT. Meta-analysis found GA-MRI to be significantly more sensitive than CE-CT (RR = 1.29, 95 % CI = 1.18-1.40, P < 0.001), with equivalent specificity (RR = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.910-1.042, P = 0.44). The largest difference was observed for lesions smaller than 10 mm for which GA-MRI was significantly more sensitive (RR = 2.21, 95 % CI = 1.47-3.32, P < 0.001) but less specific (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.87-0.98, P = 0.008). GA-MRI affected clinical management in 26 of 155 patients (16.8 %) who had a prior CE-CT; however, no studies investigated the consequences of using GA-MRI instead of CE-CT.
CONCLUSION: GA-MRI is significantly more sensitive than CE-CT for detecting liver metastases, which leads to a modest impact on patient management in the context of an equivocal CE-CT result.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app