Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison between M-score and LR-M in the reporting system of contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison between M-score and LR-M in the reporting system of contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison between M-score and LR-M in the reporting system of contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison between M-score and LR-M in the reporting system of contrast-enhanced ultrasound LI-RADS
2019
Overview
ObjectiveTo develop a contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) M-score and compare it with LR-M in CEUS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS).MethodsWe retrospectively enrolled 105 consecutive high-risk patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 105 with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The subjects were selected by propensity score matching between November 2003 and December 2017. A CEUS M-score for predicting ICC was constructed based on specific CEUS features by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regularised regression. M-score was used to develop a modified CEUS LI-RADS. The diagnostic performance of the modified CEUS LI-RADS using M-score for diagnosing HCC and ICC was compared with American College of Radiology (ACR) CEUS LI-RADS using LR-M.ResultsThe most useful features for ICC were as follows: poorly circumscribed (69.52%), rim enhancement (63.81%), early washout (92.38%), intratumoural vein (56.19%), obscure boundary of intratumoural non-enhanced area (57.14%), and marked washout (59.05%, all p < 0.001). For predicting ICC, the M-score had a higher specificity (88.57% vs. 63.81%) with lower sensitivity (89.52% vs. 95.24%) compared with LR-M. For diagnosing HCC, the sensitivity of modified LI-RADS (80.95%) was much higher than that of ACR LI-RADS (57.14%), but the specificity was lower (90.48% vs. 96.19%). The area under the curve (AUC) of modified LI-RADS (0.857) was much higher than that of ACR LI-RADS (0.767, p = 0.0001). The modified positive predictive value (PPV) of ACR LI-RADS and modified LI-RADS were 99.42% and 98.99%, respectively.ConclusionsThe modified LI-RADS with M-score had higher sensitivity for diagnosing HCC and higher specificity for diagnosing ICC than ACR LI-RADS.Key Points• For predicting ICC, the M-score had a higher specificity (88.57% vs. 63.81%) with lower sensitivity (89.52% vs. 95.24%) compared with LR-M.• A CEUS M-score for predicting ICC consisted of more detailed CEUS features (poorly circumscribed, rim enhancement, early washout, intratumoural vein, obscure boundary of intratumoural non-enhanced area, and marked washout) was constructed.• For diagnosing HCC, the sensitivity of modified LI-RADS (80.95%) was much higher than that of ACR LI-RADS (57.14%), but the specificity was lower (90.48% vs. 96.19%). The modified positive predictive value (PPV) of ACR LI-RADS and modified LI-RADS were 99.42% and 98.99%, respectively.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
