Ying Liu1, Jia Li2, Yi-ran Tan1, Ping Xiong3, Lai-ping Zhong4. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial-Head and Neck Oncology, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Ultrasound, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Ultrasound, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: Xiongpxp@163.com. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial-Head and Neck Oncology, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: Zhonglp@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical differential diagnosis in patients with salivary gland tumor (SGT). STUDY DESIGN: Six databases were used to search the literature published between 1982 and 2013. Histologic diagnosis was required as standard diagnosis. Pooled estimate for sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) and area under curve (AUC) were calculated and compared using STATA and Meta-Disc statistical software. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included. Pooled sensitivity for US, CT, and MRI was 0.629 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.73), 0.830 (95% CI 0.74-0.90), and 0.807 (95% CI 0.73-0.87), respectively; pooled specificity for US, CT, and MRI was 0.920 (95% CI 0.89-0.94), 0.851 (95% CI 0.79-0.90), and 0.886 (95% CI 0.85-0.92), respectively. The AUC under SROC for US, CT, and MRI was 0.934 ± 0.058, 0.912 ± 0.889, and 0.903 ± 0.045, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CT is recommended, as it is an effective imaging tool for differential diagnosis in patients with primary SGT, and MRI is suggested for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant GSTs because of its highest sensitivity and specificity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical differential diagnosis in patients with salivary gland tumor (SGT). STUDY DESIGN: Six databases were used to search the literature published between 1982 and 2013. Histologic diagnosis was required as standard diagnosis. Pooled estimate for sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (SROC) and area under curve (AUC) were calculated and compared using STATA and Meta-Disc statistical software. RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included. Pooled sensitivity for US, CT, and MRI was 0.629 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.73), 0.830 (95% CI 0.74-0.90), and 0.807 (95% CI 0.73-0.87), respectively; pooled specificity for US, CT, and MRI was 0.920 (95% CI 0.89-0.94), 0.851 (95% CI 0.79-0.90), and 0.886 (95% CI 0.85-0.92), respectively. The AUC under SROC for US, CT, and MRI was 0.934 ± 0.058, 0.912 ± 0.889, and 0.903 ± 0.045, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CT is recommended, as it is an effective imaging tool for differential diagnosis in patients with primary SGT, and MRI is suggested for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant GSTs because of its highest sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Masato Nakaguro; Yuichiro Tada; William C Faquin; Peter M Sadow; Lori J Wirth; Toshitaka Nagao Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 5.284