Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative diffusion parameters in the pathological grading of hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta‐analysis

Accurate preoperative assessment of the pathological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could greatly benefit prognostic predictions.

To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and tissue diffusivity (D) for the noninvasive pathological grading of HCC.

Meta‐analysis.

PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find related original articles published up to May 30, 2019.

Diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) and/or intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) were performed with a 1.5T or 3.0T scanner.

The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to assess the methodologic quality.

The bivariate random‐effects model was used to obtain the pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was obtained. Subgroup analyses were performed.

A total of 16 original articles (1428 HCCs) were included. Most studies had a low to unclear risk of bias and minimal concerns regarding applicability. For the discrimination of well‐differentiated HCCs, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the ADC value were 85% and 92%, respectively. For the discrimination of poorly differentiated HCCs, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the ADC value and D were 84% and 80%, and 92% and 77%, respectively. The summary AUROC of D (0.94) was significantly higher than that of ADC (0.89) (z = –2.718, P = 0.007). The subgroup analyses identified three covariates including size, number of included lesions in the studies, and blindness to the reference standard as possible sources of heterogeneity.

This meta‐analysis showed that the ADC and D values had a high to excellent accuracy for the noninvasive pathological grading of HCCs and that the D value was superior to the ADC value for discriminating poorly differentiated HCCs.

Level of Evidence: 3

Technical Efficacy Stage: 2

J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1581–1593.