Skip to main content

Table 3 Diagnostic performance of LR-5V v2016 and LR-TIV v2017 in identifying the originated tumor of TIV

From: Identification of the origin of tumor in vein: comparison between CEUS LI-RADS v2017 and v2016 for patients at high risk

CEUS LI-RADS category

Sensitivity

p value

Specificity

p value

Accuracy

p value

PPV

p value

NPV

p value

LR-5V (n = 273)

–

–

–

–

97.4

(96, 99)

[266/273]

–

97.4

(96, 99)

[266/273]

–

–

–

LR-5 subclass of LR-TIV (n = 164)

61.3

(55, 67)

[163/266]

–

85.7

(51, 121)

[6/7]

–

61.9

(56, 68)

[169/273]

< 0.001

99.4

(98, 101)

[163/164]

0.268

5.5

(1, 10)

[6/109]

–

LR-4/5 subclass of LR-TIV (n = 170)

63.5

(58, 69)

[169/266]

–

85.7

(51, 121)

[6/7]

–

64.1

(58, 70)

[175/273]

< 0.001

99.4

(98, 101)

[169/170]

0.161

5.8

(1, 10)

[6/103]

–

  1. Data are percentages, data in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals, and data in brackets are numbers of cases
  2. CEUS Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound; LI-RADS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System; NPV Negative predictive value; PPV Positive predictive value; TIV Tumor in vein
Back to article page

BMC Medical Imaging

ISSN: 1471-2342

Contact us