Diagnostic value of quantitative DWI and IVIM parameters in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
메타분석
1/5 보강
[PURPOSE] This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), including both conventional and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters, in d
- p-value p < 0.001
- p-value p = 0.022
- 95% CI 22.47-84.13
- 연구 설계 systematic review
APA
Mohammadzadeh S, Mohebbi A, et al. (2026). Diagnostic value of quantitative DWI and IVIM parameters in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Abdominal radiology (New York), 51(3), 1244-1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-025-05072-x
MLA
Mohammadzadeh S, et al.. "Diagnostic value of quantitative DWI and IVIM parameters in differentiating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.." Abdominal radiology (New York), vol. 51, no. 3, 2026, pp. 1244-1260.
PMID
40844594 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[PURPOSE] This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), including both conventional and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters, in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).
[METHOD] A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following a pre-registered protocol ( https://osf.io/9yhrg ). Relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase up to March 8, 2025. Quantitative DWI parameters, including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), pure diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (pseudo-D), and perfusion fraction (f), were compared between HCC and ICC using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias tests were performed.
[RESULTS] Twenty-one studies encompassing 1109 HCC and 838 ICC lesions were included. Pooled ADC values did not differ significantly between HCC (1.10, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.17) and ICC (1.16, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.25) groups (p = 0.156). In contrast, D showed significant differentiation between HCC (0.89, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.02) and ICC (1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.16), with p < 0.001. Moreover, the pseudo-D parameter demonstrated comparable values in ICC (53.3; 95% CI, 22.47-84.13) and HCC (49.35; 95% CI, 23.28-75.41) lesions (p = 0.912). Finally, the f parameter revealed significantly (p = 0.022) lower values for ICC (19.21, 95% CI = 12.98 to 25.44) compared to HCC (23.78, 95% CI = 14.76 to 32.8). For each parameter, we calculated pooled mean differences, standardized mean differences, percentage differences, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve.
[CONCLUSION] While ADC retains clinical utility due to widespread availability, this meta-analysis establishes D as a superior biomarker over ADC for distinguishing ICC from HCC focal liver lesions. These findings support the integration of non-Gaussian DWI techniques in clinical practice for improved tumor characterization.
[METHOD] A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following a pre-registered protocol ( https://osf.io/9yhrg ). Relevant studies were identified through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase up to March 8, 2025. Quantitative DWI parameters, including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), pure diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (pseudo-D), and perfusion fraction (f), were compared between HCC and ICC using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias tests were performed.
[RESULTS] Twenty-one studies encompassing 1109 HCC and 838 ICC lesions were included. Pooled ADC values did not differ significantly between HCC (1.10, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.17) and ICC (1.16, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.25) groups (p = 0.156). In contrast, D showed significant differentiation between HCC (0.89, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.02) and ICC (1.04, 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.16), with p < 0.001. Moreover, the pseudo-D parameter demonstrated comparable values in ICC (53.3; 95% CI, 22.47-84.13) and HCC (49.35; 95% CI, 23.28-75.41) lesions (p = 0.912). Finally, the f parameter revealed significantly (p = 0.022) lower values for ICC (19.21, 95% CI = 12.98 to 25.44) compared to HCC (23.78, 95% CI = 14.76 to 32.8). For each parameter, we calculated pooled mean differences, standardized mean differences, percentage differences, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve.
[CONCLUSION] While ADC retains clinical utility due to widespread availability, this meta-analysis establishes D as a superior biomarker over ADC for distinguishing ICC from HCC focal liver lesions. These findings support the integration of non-Gaussian DWI techniques in clinical practice for improved tumor characterization.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
- Humans
- Cholangiocarcinoma
- Carcinoma
- Hepatocellular
- Liver Neoplasms
- Diagnosis
- Differential
- Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Bile Duct Neoplasms
- Sensitivity and Specificity
- Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA)
- Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)
- Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
- Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- A Phase I Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Suba-Itraconazole in Men with Biochemical Relapse of Prostate Cancer (HITMAN-PC): Dose Escalation Results.
- Self-management of male urinary symptoms: qualitative findings from a primary care trial.
- Clinical and Liquid Biomarkers of 20-Year Prostate Cancer Risk in Men Aged 45 to 70 Years.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for preoperative pelvic invasion in the patients with prostate cancer.
- Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Cancer.
- Association of patient health education with the postoperative health related quality of life in low- intermediate recurrence risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients.