Table 4.
Diagnostic accuracy of different modalities compared to the reference standard
| Modality | N (HCC) | N (Non-HCC) | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV* | NPV* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEUS on-site (subjective) | 378 | 92 | 91.5% [88.7%; 94.3%] | 67.4% [57.8%; 77%] | 92% [89.3%; 94.8%] | 66% [56.4%; 75.5%] |
| CEUS guidelines (hyper-hypo) | 378 | 92 | 74.3% [69.9%; 78.7%] | 63% [53.2%; 72.9%] | 89.2% [85.8%; 92.6%] | 37.4% [29.8%; 45%] |
| ESCULAP | 279 | 70 | 95% [92.4%; 97.5%] | 51.4% [39.7%; 63.1%] | 88.6% [85%; 92.2%] | 72% [59.6%; 84.4%] |
| CEUS LI-RADS© | 279 | 70 | 65.2% [59.6%; 70.8%] | 78.6% [69%; 88.2%] | 92.4% [88.7%; 96.1%] | 36.2% [28.5%; 43.8%] |
*Relating to a prevalence of 80%
Table 4 shows the diagnostic accuracies of the different modalities tested in direct comparison (CEUS subjective; CEUS following the guidelines (“hyper-hypo” pattern); and the two standardized CEUS algorithms, ESCULAP and CEUS LI-RADS®). The normal approximation interval was used for 95% confidence intervals
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; CEUS, contrast-enhanced ultrasound; ESCULAP, Erlanger Synopsis for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Liver lesion Assessment in Patients at risk; CEUS LI-RADS©, Contrast-Enhanced UltraSound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System