High-risk esophageal varices in patients treated with locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Assessment with liver computed tomography

Table 1 Az in receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and P values of liver computed tomography for the detection of high-risk esophageal varices by three observers

	Observer 1	Observer 1	Observer 2	Observer 2	Observer 3	Observer 3	Mean	Mean
	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR
ROC Az	0.947 ± 0.031	0.965 ± 0.025	0.969 ± 0.024	0.959 ± 0.027	0.916 ± 0.038	0.938 ± 0.033	0.946 ± 0.018	0.954 ± 0.017
95%CI	0.883-0.982	0.908-0.991	0.913-0.993	0.899-0.988	0.843-0.962	0.871-0.976	0.914-0.968	0.924-0.975
P value1	0.318		0.328		0.271		0.367
P value2	Observer 1-2	Observer 1-2	Observer 2-3	Observer 2-3	Observer 3-1	Observer 3-1
	0.368	0.782	0.099	0.461	0.35	0.334

¹Represent the differences of the A_z values for transverse images alone and for the three orthogonal MPR images by each observer and the pooled data;

²Represent the differences (interobserver comparisons) of the Az values among three observers with both transverse images alone and with the three orthogonal MPR images.Transverse indicates transverse images alone and 3 MPR indicates three orthogonal MPR images. Az values are mean ± SD. CI: Confidence interval; MPR: Multiplanar reformation; ROC: Receiver operating characteristic.

Table 2 Sensitivity and specificity of liver computed tomography for the detection of high-risk esophageal varices by three observers

	Observer 1	Observer 1	Observer 2	Observer 2	Observer 3	Observer 3	Mean	Mean
	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR
Sensitivity%	92.6 (25/27)	92.6 (25/27)	92.6 (25/27)	92.6 (25/27)	85.2 (23/27)	88.9 (24/27)	90.1 (73/81)	91.4 (74/81)
P value	1.000		1.000		1.000		1.000
Specificity%	89.0 (65/73)	90.4 (66/73)	87.7 (64/73)	87.7 (64/73)	82.2 (60/73)	90.4 (66/73)	86.3 (189/219)	89.5 (196/219)
P value	1.000		1.000		0.070		0.039

For sensitivity, the numbers in parentheses are the number of varices assigned a score of 3 or 4 divided by the total number of varices. P values represent the differences of the sensitivity and the specificity for transverse images alone and for the three orthogonal MPR images (McNemar test). MPR: Multiplanar reformation.

Table 3 Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of liver computed tomography for the detection of high-risk esophageal varices by three observers

	Observer 1	Observer 1	Observer 2	Observer 2	Observer 3	Observer 3	All	All
	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR	Transverse	3 MPR
PPV %	75.8 (25/33)	78.1 (25/32)	73.5 (25/34)	73.5 (25/34)	63.9 (23/36)	77.4 (24/31)	70.9 (73/103)	76.3 (74/97)
P value	0.947		1.000		0.352		0.482
NPV%	97.0 (65/67)	97.1 (66/68)	97.0 (64/66)	97.0 (64/66)	93.8 (60/64)	95.7 (66/69)	95.9 (189/197)	96.6 (196/203)
P value	1.000		1.000		0.710		0.797

P values represent the differences of the positive predicative value and the negative predicative value for transverse images alone and for the three orthogonal MPR images (χ² test and Fisher's exact test). MPR: Multiplanar reformation; PPV: Positive predicative value; NPV: Negative predicative value.