Hepatocellular carcinoma: Can LI-RADS v2017 with gadoxetic-acid enhancement magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging improve diagnostic accuracy?

doi:10.3748/wjg.v25.i5.622

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 25, Issue 5

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (7818)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-3) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

515

WORD

324

HTML

3783

Figures (1-3)

343

Tables (1-3)

226

Sum=5191

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1151

Download

1476

Sum=2627

Feb 7, 2019 (publication date) through Nov 30, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (21)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Gastroenterol. Feb 7, 2019; 25(5): 622-631
Published online Feb 7, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i5.622

Table 3 Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the liver imaging reporting and data system category for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma with gadoxetic-acid enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

Group	DWI	Sensitivity (100%)	Specificity (100%)	Accuracy (100%)	PPV (100%)	NPV (100%)	Youden index
LR-5	A-DWI	61.2 (101/165)	92.5 (74/80)	71.4 (175/245)	94.4 (101/107)	53.6 (74/138)	0.537
LR-5	P-DWI	61.2 (101/165)	92.5 (74/80)	71.4 (175/245)	94.4 (101/107)	53.6 (74/138)	0.537
LR-4/5	A-DWI	73.9 (122/165)	80 (64/80)	75.9 (186/245)	88.4(122/138)	59.8 (64/107)	0.539
LR-4/5	P-DWI	87.9 (145/165)	80 (64/80)	85.3 (209/245)	90.1 (145/161)	76.2 (64/84)	0.679
LR-4/5/M	A-DWI	75.8 (125/165)	58.8 (47/80)	70.2 (172/245)	79.1 (125/158)	54 (47/87)	0.346
LR-4/5/M	P-DWI	87.9 (145/165)	58.8 (47/80)	78.4 (192/245)	81.5 (145/178)	70.1 (47/67)	0.467
LR-4/5/TIV	A-DWI	75.8 (125/165)	75 (60/80)	75.5 (185/245)	86.2 (125/145)	60 (60/100)	0.508
LR-4/5/TIV	P-DWI	89.7 (148/165)	75 (60/80)	84.9 (208/245)	88.1 (148/168)	77.9 (60/77)	0.647

A-DWI: Absence of diffusion-weighted imaging; P-DWI: Presence of diffusion-weighted imaging; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value.

Citation: Zhang T, Huang ZX, Wei Y, Jiang HY, Chen J, Liu XJ, Cao LK, Duan T, He XP, Xia CC, Song B. Hepatocellular carcinoma: Can LI-RADS v2017 with gadoxetic-acid enhancement magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging improve diagnostic accuracy? World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(5): 622-631
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v25/i5/622.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i5.622