Background
The diagnostic efficacy of contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI) in diagnosing residual or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is currently not completely clear.
Purpose
To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of CEMRI in detecting residual or recurrent HCCs after TACE by meta‐analysis.
Study Type
Systematic review and meta‐analysis.
Population
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library database up to June 2019 to find original studies on diagnosing patients suspected of residual or recurrent HCCs after TACE with CEMRI. Thirteen studies comprising 721 nodules were finally included.
Field Strength/Sequence
1.5T or 3.0T, CEMRI.
Assessment
Quality assessment of the included studies was performed by applying the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 (QUADAS‐2) tool.
Statistical Tests
Sensitivity and specificity were pooled with a bivariate random‐effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by the chi‐square test. The potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup and publication bias analyses.
Results
The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of CEMRI in diagnosing residual or recurrent HCCs after TACE were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%–96%), 93% (95% CI: 85%–97%), 12.22 (95% CI: 5.62–26.57), 0.09 (95% CI: 0.05–0.18), 126.99 (95% CI: 34.76–436.99) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95–0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that CEMRI performed significantly better in prospective studies than in retrospective studies: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.96–1.00) vs. 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) with P < 0.05.
Data Conclusion
Our meta‐analysis suggested that CEMRI had high diagnostic efficacy in detecting residual or recurrent HCCs after TACE and may serve as an alternative method for further evaluation after TACE.
Level of Evidence: 5
Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:1019–1028.