Author:
Wang Xiao-min,Zhang Xiao-jing
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Fibrosis has important pathoetiological and prognostic roles in chronic liver disease. This study evaluates the role of radiomics in staging liver fibrosis.
Method
After literature search in electronic databases (Embase, Ovid, Science Direct, Springer, and Web of Science), studies were selected by following precise eligibility criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed, and meta-analyses were performed to achieve pooled estimates of area under receiver-operator curve (AUROC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of radiomics in staging liver fibrosis compared to histopathology.
Results
Fifteen studies (3718 patients; age 47 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 42, 53]; 69% [95% CI: 65, 73] males) were included. AUROC values of radiomics for detecting significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), and cirrhosis (F4) were 0.91 [95%CI: 0.89, 0.94], 0.92 [95%CI: 0.90, 0.95], and 0.94 [95%CI: 0.93, 0.96] in training cohorts and 0.89 [95%CI: 0.83, 0.91], 0.89 [95%CI: 0.83, 0.94], and 0.93 [95%CI: 0.91, 0.95] in validation cohorts, respectively. For diagnosing significant fibrosis, advanced fibrosis, and cirrhosis the sensitivity of radiomics was 84.0% [95%CI: 76.1, 91.9], 86.9% [95%CI: 76.8, 97.0], and 92.7% [95%CI: 89.7, 95.7] in training cohorts, and 75.6% [95%CI: 67.7, 83.5], 80.0% [95%CI: 70.7, 89.3], and 92.0% [95%CI: 87.8, 96.1] in validation cohorts, respectively. Respective specificity was 88.6% [95% CI: 83.0, 94.2], 88.4% [95% CI: 81.9, 94.8], and 91.1% [95% CI: 86.8, 95.5] in training cohorts, and 86.8% [95% CI: 83.3, 90.3], 94.0% [95% CI: 89.5, 98.4], and 88.3% [95% CI: 84.4, 92.2] in validation cohorts. Limitations included use of several methods for feature selection and classification, less availability of studies evaluating a particular radiological modality, lack of a direct comparison between radiology and radiomics, and lack of external validation.
Conclusion
Although radiomics offers good diagnostic accuracy in detecting liver fibrosis, its role in clinical practice is not as clear at present due to comparability and validation constraints.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference48 articles.
1. Cheemerla S, Balakrishnan M. Global epidemiology of chronic liver disease. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken). 2021;17(5):365–70.
2. Centers for disease control and prevention. national center for health statistics. fast stats homepage. Chronic liver disease. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/liver-disease.htm. Last accessed on March 16, 2024.
3. Li M, Wang ZQ, Zhang L, Zheng H, Liu DW, Zhou MG. Burden of cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases caused by specific etiologies in China, 1990–2016: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Biomed Environ Sci. 2020;33(1):1–10.
4. Zhai M, Liu Z, Long J, Zhou Q, Yang L, Zhou Q, et al. The incidence trends of liver cirrhosis caused by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis via the GBD study 2017. Sci Rep. 2021;11:5195. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84577-z.
5. Angulo P, Kleiner DE, Dam-Larsen S, Adams LA, Bjornsson ES, Charatcharoenwitthaya P, et al. liver fibrosis, but no other histologic features, is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(2):389–97.