LI-RADS CT/MRI v2018 各辅助征象的阅片者间一致性:系统综述与荟萃分析
该系统综述与荟萃分析纳入47项研究、共11,891例患者和13,695个肝脏病灶,评估LI-RADS CT/MRI v2018中21个辅助征象(AFs)的阅片者间一致性。汇总kappa值在倾向于恶性(尤其非HCC)的AFs中为0.58–0.84,在倾向于HCC的AFs中为0.58–0.75,在倾向于良性的AFs中为0.26–0.73。总体而言,倾向于恶性的AFs一致性高于倾向于良性的AFs,建议对低一致性AFs谨慎应用。
要点
- 倾向于恶性的AFs一致性较高,HBP低信号kappa达0.84,扩散受限0.75。
- 倾向于良性的AFs一致性较低,强化与血池平行kappa仅0.26,HBP等信号0.58。
- 三个AFs无研究数据:超声可见离散结节、大小稳定≥2年、体积缩小。
核心结论
- LI-RADS CT/MRI v2018辅助征象的阅片者间一致性总体在倾向于恶性的AFs中高于倾向于良性的AFs。
研究设计与样本
- 系统综述与荟萃分析,检索MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane数据库2018年1月1日至2025年9月15日发表的原创研究。
- 最终纳入47项研究,共11,891例患者和13,695个肝脏病灶。
- 采用DerSimonian-Laird随机效应模型结合Knapp-Hartung调整计算21个AFs的汇总kappa值,并通过荟萃回归分析研究特征与一致性的独立关联。
关键影像表现/征象
- 倾向于恶性但非HCC的AFs汇总kappa:亚阈值增长0.58、冠状强化0.63、实性肿块内脂肪保留0.69、移行期低信号0.70、实性肿块内铁保留0.72、扩散受限0.75、轻度至中度T2高信号0.77、HBP低信号0.84。
- 倾向于HCC的AFs汇总kappa:非强化包膜0.58、结节内结节0.66、马赛克架构0.69、肿块内脂肪多于邻近肝0.72、肿块内血产物0.75。
- 倾向于良性的AFs汇总kappa:强化与血池平行0.26、HBP等信号0.58、显著T2高信号0.59、血管无扭曲0.60、肿块内铁多于肝0.73。
诊断标准与关键数值
- 报告了21个AFs的汇总kappa值,其中3个AFs(超声可见离散结节、大小稳定≥2年、体积缩小)无研究数据。
- 倾向恶性(非HCC)AFs的kappa范围为0.58–0.84;倾向HCC的AFs为0.58–0.75;倾向良性的AFs为0.26–0.73。
临床应用与阅片要点
- 日常阅片和报告中,对倾向于良性的低一致性AFs(如强化与血池平行、HBP等信号)应谨慎解读,避免过度依赖。
- 在肝硬化患者比例较高(≥80%)或使用CT而非MRI时,部分AFs的一致性可能进一步降低,需注意。
局限性
- 原文未明确列出研究局限性。
以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。
英文原文(摘要)· 点击展开
BACKGROUND. In LI-RADS CT/MRI version 2018 (v2018), ancillary features (AFs) support observation characterization and category assignment. The literature is lacking regarding interreader agreement on a broad range of AFs. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the interreader agreement for all individual AFs in LI-RADS CT/MRI v2018 and to identify factors associated with interpretation variability. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for original research studies published from January 1, 2018, to September 15, 2025, that reported interreader agreement for individual AFs in LI-RADS CT/MRI v2018. Pooled kappa values for the 21 individual AFs were determined using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Knapp-Hartung adjustment. Study characteristics independently associated with agreement were identified by metaregression analyses. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. The final analysis included 47 studies comprising a total of 11,891 patients and 13,695 hepatic observations. Three AFs (ultrasound visibility as discrete nodule, size stability for ≥ 2 years, and size reduction) were not reported in any studies. The pooled kappa value among AFs favoring malignancy but not HCC in particular was 0.58 for subthreshold growth, 0.63 for corona enhancement, 0.69 for fat sparing in solid mass, 0.70 for transitional phase hypointensity, 0.72 for iron sparing in solid mass, 0.75 for restricted diffusion, 0.77 for mild-to-moderate T2 hyperintensity, and 0.84 for hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity; among AFs favoring HCC in particular, it was 0.58 for nonenhancing capsule, 0.66 for nodule-in-nodule appearance, 0.69 for mosaic architecture, 0.72 for fat in mass more than adjacent liver, and 0.75 for blood products in mass; and among AFs favoring benignity, it was 0.26 for enhancement paralleling blood pool, 0.58 for HBP isointensity, 0.59 for marked T2 hyperintensity, 0.60 for undistorted vessels, and 0.73 for iron in mass more than liver. In metaregression analyses, study characteristics showing significant independent associations with greater agreement for at least one AF included a proportion of patients with cirrhosis that was less than 80% and modality use of MRI only. CONCLUSION. Interreader agreement was generally higher for AFs favoring malignancy than for those favoring benignity. CLINICAL IMPACT. Cautious application of AFs in clinical practice is advised for the AFs associated with low agreement, particularly in settings further contributing to reduced agreement.
引用
- Jung YJ, Choi SH, Heo S, et al. Interreader Agreement for Individual Ancillary Features in LI-RADS CT/MRI Version 2018: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2026. PMID: 42018773. doi:10.2214/AJR.26.34591
供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。