Stella K Kang1,2, Angela Zhang3, Pari V Pandharipande4,5, Hersh Chandarana1, R Scott Braithwaite2,6, Benjamin Littenberg7. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016. 2. 2 Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY. 3. 3 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 4. 4 Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. 6 Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY. 7. 7 Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the test performance of DWI in the characterization of renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed searches of three electronic databases for studies on renal mass characterization using DWI. Methodologic quality was assessed for each study. We quantitatively analyzed test performance for three clinical problems: first, benign versus malignant lesions; second, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) versus other malignancies; and, third, high-versus low-grade clear cell RCCs. We summarized performance as a single pair of sensitivity and specificity values or a summary ROC curve. RESULTS: The studies in the literature were limited in both quantity and quality. For classification of benign versus malignant lesions, four studies with 279 lesions yielded a single summary estimate of 86% sensitivity and 78% specificity. For differentiation of clear cell RCC from other malignancies, five studies showed marked heterogeneity not conducive to meta-analysis. For differentiation of high-from low-grade clear cell RCCs, three studies with 110 lesions showed a threshold effect appropriate for summary ROC construction: The AUC was 0.83. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests moderate accuracy of DWI for the prediction of malignancy and high-grade clear cell cancers, whereas DWI performance for ascertaining clear cell histologic grade remains unclear. To develop DWI as a noninvasive approach for the evaluation of solid renal masses, prospective studies with standardized test parameters are needed to better establish DWI performance and its impact on patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the test performance of DWI in the characterization of renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed searches of three electronic databases for studies on renal mass characterization using DWI. Methodologic quality was assessed for each study. We quantitatively analyzed test performance for three clinical problems: first, benign versus malignant lesions; second, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) versus other malignancies; and, third, high-versus low-grade clear cell RCCs. We summarized performance as a single pair of sensitivity and specificity values or a summary ROC curve. RESULTS: The studies in the literature were limited in both quantity and quality. For classification of benign versus malignant lesions, four studies with 279 lesions yielded a single summary estimate of 86% sensitivity and 78% specificity. For differentiation of clear cell RCC from other malignancies, five studies showed marked heterogeneity not conducive to meta-analysis. For differentiation of high-from low-grade clear cell RCCs, three studies with 110 lesions showed a threshold effect appropriate for summary ROC construction: The AUC was 0.83. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests moderate accuracy of DWI for the prediction of malignancy and high-grade clear cell cancers, whereas DWI performance for ascertaining clear cell histologic grade remains unclear. To develop DWI as a noninvasive approach for the evaluation of solid renal masses, prospective studies with standardized test parameters are needed to better establish DWI performance and its impact on patient outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
DWI; diagnostic test accuracy; meta-analysis; renal mass; systematic review
Authors: Nicholas J Farber; Christopher J Kim; Parth K Modi; Jane D Hon; Evita T Sadimin; Eric A Singer Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.241
Authors: Daniel R Ludwig; David H Ballard; Anup S Shetty; Cary L Siegel; Motoyo Yano Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Alberto Diaz de Leon; Matthew S Davenport; Stuart G Silverman; Nicola Schieda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Noah E Canvasser; Fernando U Kay; Yin Xi; Daniella F Pinho; Daniel Costa; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Gaurav Khatri; John R Leyendecker; Takeshi Yokoo; Aaron Lay; Nicholas Kavoussi; Ersin Koseoglu; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fernando U Kay; Noah E Canvasser; Yin Xi; Daniella F Pinho; Daniel N Costa; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Gaurav Khatri; John R Leyendecker; Takeshi Yokoo; Aaron H Lay; Nicholas Kavoussi; Ersin Koseoglu; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 11.105