Authors: Valérie Vilgrain Maxime Esvan Maxime Ronot Aurore CaumontPrim Christophe Aubé Gilles Chatellier
Publish Date: 2016/02/16
Volume: 26, Issue: 12, Pages: 4595-4615
Abstract
A comprehensive search EMBASE PubMed Cochrane was performed to identify relevant articles up to June 2015 Inclusion criteria were liver metastases DWMR imaging and/or gadoxetic acidenhanced MR imaging and perlesion statistics The reference standard was histopathology intraoperative observation and/or followup Sources of bias were assessed using the QUADAS2 tool A linear mixedeffect regression model was used to obtain sensitivity estimatesThirtynine articles were included 1989 patients 3854 metastases Sensitivity estimates for DWMR imaging gadoxetic acidenhanced MR imaging and the combined sequence for detecting liver metastases on a perlesion basis was 871 906 and 955 respectively Sensitivity estimates by gadoxetic acidenhanced MR imaging and the combined sequence were significantly better than DWMR imaging p = 00001 and p 00001 respectively and the combined MR sequence was significantly more sensitive than gadoxetic acidenhanced MR imaging p 00001 Similar results were observed in articles that compared the three techniques simultaneously with only colorectal liver metastases and in liver metastases smaller than 1 cmThe scientific guarantor of this publication is Valérie Vilgrain The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article This study has received funding by the French Ministry of Health PHRC AOM 08114 The authors thank The Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer for supporting metaanalysis in cancerOne of the authors has significant statistical expertise Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this study is a metaanalysis Written informed consent was not required for this study because this study is a metaanalysis Methodology retrospective metaanalysis performed at one institution
Keywords: