Liang J.a,b· Qiu B.b· Yin S.a· Chen Y.a· Zhang S.a

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The Fifth Clinical Medical College of Henan University of Chinese Medicine (Zhengzhou People’s Hospital), Zhengzhou, China
bInternational Doctoral School, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.

Buy FullText & PDF Unlimited re-access via MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.

Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.

Learn more

Access via DeepDyve Unlimited fulltext viewing Of this article Organize, annotate And mark up articles Printing And downloading restrictions apply

Select

Subscribe Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use read more

Subcription rates

Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: February 02, 2022
Accepted: May 12, 2022
Published online: July 01, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 7
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0012-2823 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9867 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DIG

Abstract

Background and Aims: Liver fibrosis has been recognized as a significant risk factor for short-term outcomes after hepatectomy. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) showed higher diagnostic performance in staging liver fibrosis than other elastography modalities. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of predicting postoperative complications in patients with malignant liver tumors using liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by MRE. Methods: After a systematic review of the relevant studies, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC) for the diagnosis of postoperative complications were pooled using bivariate meta-analysis. Meanwhile, the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the effect. Heterogeneity was explored by sensitivity analysis, univariate meta-regression, and subgroup analysis. The potential publication bias was evaluated by the Deek’s funnel plot test. Results: Eight studies comprising a total of 1,154 patients that predicted postoperative outcomes as their purpose were ultimately included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled results of the meta-analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 78% (95% CI: 69–85%, Higgins’s inconsistency index [I2] = 43.00), 75% (95% CI: 70–80%, Higgins’s inconsistency index [I2] = 72.53), and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80–0.86), respectively. Preoperative LSM by MRE was significantly associated with the development of overall postoperative outcomes (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.49–2.08). Univariate meta-regression showed that advanced fibrosis stage (≥F3), HCC patient proportion and cut-off value significantly influenced the heterogeneity of the included studies. The AUC of several novel prediction models based on LSM by MRE ranged from 0.818 to 0.911. Conclusions: In conclusion, liver stiffness measured by MRE was a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing liver resection. Future studies could focus on setting a prognostic model integrated with LSM by MRE in distinguishing patients at high risk of posthepatectomy complications.

© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel

References European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018 Jul;69(1):182–236. Van den Broek MA, Olde Damink SW, Dejong CH, Lang H, Malagó M, Jalan R, et al. Liver failure after partial hepatic resection: definition, pathophysiology, risk factors and treatment. Liver Int. 2008 Jul;28(6):767–80. Berardi G, Morise Z, Sposito C, Igarashi K, Panetta V, Simonelli I, et al. Development of a nomogram to predict outcome after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2020 Jan;72(1):75–84. Greco E, Nanji S, Bromberg IL, Shah S, Wei AC, Moulton CA, et al. Predictors of peri-opertative morbidity and liver dysfunction after hepatic resection in patients with chronic liver disease. HPB. 2011 Aug;13(8):559–65. Zhang ZQ, Xiong L, Zhou JJ, Miao XY, Li QL, Wen Y, et al. Ability of the ALBI grade to predict posthepatectomy liver failure and long-term survival after liver resection for different BCLC stages of HCC. World J Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct 16;16(1):208. Fukushima K, Fukumoto T, Kuramitsu K, Kido M, Takebe A, Tanaka M, et al. Assessment of ISGLS definition of posthepatectomy liver failure and its effect on outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014 Apr;18(4):729–36. Abe H, Midorikawa Y, Mitsuka Y, Aramaki O, Higaki T, Matsumoto N, et al. Predicting postoperative outcomes of liver resection by magnetic resonance elastography. Surgery. 2017 Aug;162(2):248–55. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med. 2001 Feb 15;344(7):495–500. Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ, Milikowski C, Molina EG, Pyrsopoulos NT, et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Oct;97(10):2614–8. Gao Y, Zheng J, Liang P, Tong M, Wang J, Wu C, et al. Liver fibrosis with two-dimensional US shear-wave elastography in participants with chronic hepatitis B: a prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2018 Nov;289(2):407–15. Lefebvre T, Wartelle-Bladou C, Wong P, Sebastiani G, Giard JM, Castel H, et al. Prospective comparison of transient, point shear wave, and magnetic resonance elastography for staging liver fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2019 Dec;29(12):6477–88. Huang Z, Huang J, Zhou T, Cao H, Tan B. Prognostic value of liver stiffness measurement for the liver-related surgical outcomes of patients under hepatic resection: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018 Jan 11;13(1):e0190512. Tapper EB, Loomba R. Noninvasive imaging biomarker assessment of liver fibrosis by elastography in NAFLD. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 May;15(5):274–82. Lee DH, Lee JM, Yi NJ, Lee KW, Suh KS, Lee JH, et al. Hepatic stiffness measurement by using MR elastography: prognostic values after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol. 2017 Apr;27(4):1713–21. Shibutani K, Okada M, Tsukada J, Ibukuro K, Abe H, Matsumoto N, et al. Predictive value of combined computed tomography volumetry and magnetic resonance elastography for major complications after liver resection. Abdom Radiol. 2021 Jul;46(7):3193–204. Bae JS, Lee DH, Yi NJ, Lee KW, Suh KS, Kim H, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography versus transient elastography in the prediction of complications after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2020 Oct 19. Epub ahead of print. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Retrieved from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Salameh JP, Bossuyt PM, McGrath TA, Thombs BD, Hyde CJ, Macaskill P, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist. BMJ. 2020 Aug 14;370:m2632. Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, Brooke-Smith M, Crawford M, Adam R, et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery. 2011;149(5):713–24. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187–96. Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA. The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg. 2013 Jul;258(1):1–7. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529–36. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, Scholten RJ, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Oct;58(10):982–90. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557–60. Copas JB, Shi JQ. A sensitivity analysis for publication bias in systematic reviews. Stat Methods Med Res. 2001 Aug;10(4):251–65. Cho HJ, Ahn YH, Sim MS, Eun JW, Kim SS, Kim BW, et al. Risk prediction model based on magnetic resonance elastography-assessed liver stiffness for predicting posthepatectomy liver failure in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut Liver. 2022 Mar 15;16(2):277–89. Shibutani K, Okada M, Tsukada J, Hyodo T, Ibukuro K, Abe H, et al. A proposed model on MR elastography for predicting postoperative major complications in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. BJR Open. 2021 Nov 24;3(1):20210019. Sato N, Kenjo A, Nishimagi A, Kimura T, Okada R, Ishigame T, et al. Accuracy comparison of MR elastography and biological markers in detecting liver fibrosis and predicting postoperative ascites. HPB. 2021 Sep;23(9):1383–91. Sato N, Kenjo A, Kimura T, Okada R, Ishigame T, Kofunato Y, et al. Prediction of major complications after hepatectomy using liver stiffness values determined by magnetic resonance elastography. Br J Surg. 2018 Aug;105(9):1192–9. Hobeika C, Fuks D, Cauchy F, Goumard C, Soubrane O, Gayet B, et al. Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey. Br J Surg. 2020 Feb;107(3):268–77. Hoodeshenas S, Yin M, Venkatesh SK. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: current update. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Oct;27(5):319–33. Singh S, Venkatesh SK, Wang Z, Miller FH, Motosugi U, Low RN, et al. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance elastography in staging liver fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(3):440–51.e6. Roccarina D, Rosselli M, Genesca J, Tsochatzis EA. Elastography methods for the non-invasive assessment of portal hypertension. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Feb;12(2):155–64. Thiele M, Hugger MB, Kim Y, Rautou PE, Elkrief L, Jansen C, et al. 2D shear wave liver elastography by Aixplorer to detect portal hypertension in cirrhosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Liver Int. 2020 Jun;40(6):1435–46. Singh R, Wilson MP, Katlariwala P, Murad MH, McInnes MDF, Low G. Accuracy of liver and spleen stiffness on magnetic resonance elastography for detecting portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Feb 1;32(2):237–45. Loomba R, Cui J, Wolfson T, Haufe W, Hooker J, Szeverenyi N, et al. Novel 3D magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive diagnosis of advanced fibrosis in NAFLD: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul;111(7):986–94. Park SJ, Yoon JH, Lee DH, Lim WH, Lee JM. Tumor stiffness measurements on MR elastography for single nodular hepatocellular carcinomas can predict tumor recurrence after hepatic resection. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021 Feb;53(2):587–96. Wang J, Shan Q, Liu Y, Yang H, Kuang S, He B, et al. 3D MR elastography of hepatocellular carcinomas as a potential biomarker for predicting tumor recurrence. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Mar;49(3):719–30. Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview

Received: February 02, 2022
Accepted: May 12, 2022
Published online: July 01, 2022

Number of Print Pages: 10
Number of Figures: 7
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0012-2823 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9867 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/DIG

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.