Michael J Connolly1, Matthew D F McInnes2, Mohamed El-Khodary3, Trevor A McGrath4, Nicola Schieda1. 1. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa Department of Radiology, Room c159 Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, USA. 2. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa Department of Radiology, Room c159 Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, USA. mmcinnes@toh.on.ca. 3. McMaster University Department of Radiology, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy (DE) virtual non-contrast computed tomography (vNCT) to non-contrast CT (NCT) for the diagnosis of adrenal adenomas. METHODS: Search of multiple databases and grey literature was performed. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were generated and sources of heterogeneity were assessed. RESULTS: Five studies (170 patients; 192 adrenal masses) were included for diagnostic accuracy assessment; all used dual-source dual-energy CT. Pooled sensitivity for adrenal adenoma on vNCT was 54% (95% CI: 47-62%). Pooled sensitivity for NCT was 57% (95% CI: 45-69%). Pooling of specificity was not performed since no false positives were reported. There was a trend for overestimation of HU density on vNCT as compared to NCT which appeared related to contrast timing. Potential sources of bias were seen regarding the index test and reference standard for the included studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity between studies were seen in adenoma prevalence and intravenous contrast timing. CONCLUSIONS: vNCT images generated from dual-energy CT demonstrated comparable sensitivity to NCT for the diagnosis of adenomas; however the included studies are heterogeneous and at high risk for some types of bias. KEY POINTS: • Similar sensitivity of vNCT to NCT for diagnosis of adenoma • Heterogeneity could be related to vNCT from early (<=60 sec) CECT studies • Could not pool specificity as there were no false positives • Small number of heterogeneous studies at high risk of bias.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy (DE) virtual non-contrast computed tomography (vNCT) to non-contrast CT (NCT) for the diagnosis of adrenal adenomas. METHODS: Search of multiple databases and grey literature was performed. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were generated and sources of heterogeneity were assessed. RESULTS: Five studies (170 patients; 192 adrenal masses) were included for diagnostic accuracy assessment; all used dual-source dual-energy CT. Pooled sensitivity for adrenal adenoma on vNCT was 54% (95% CI: 47-62%). Pooled sensitivity for NCT was 57% (95% CI: 45-69%). Pooling of specificity was not performed since no false positives were reported. There was a trend for overestimation of HU density on vNCT as compared to NCT which appeared related to contrast timing. Potential sources of bias were seen regarding the index test and reference standard for the included studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity between studies were seen in adenoma prevalence and intravenous contrast timing. CONCLUSIONS: vNCT images generated from dual-energy CT demonstrated comparable sensitivity to NCT for the diagnosis of adenomas; however the included studies are heterogeneous and at high risk for some types of bias. KEY POINTS: • Similar sensitivity of vNCT to NCT for diagnosis of adenoma • Heterogeneity could be related to vNCT from early (<=60 sec) CECT studies • Could not pool specificity as there were no false positives • Small number of heterogeneous studies at high risk of bias.
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Trevor A McGrath; Robert A Frank; Nicola Schieda; Brian Blew; Jean-Paul Salameh; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Alabousi; A Alabousi; T A McGrath; K D Cobey; B Budhram; R A Frank; F Nguyen; J P Salameh; A Dehmoobad Sharifabadi; M D F McInnes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Vivian Ho; Nils Große Hokamp; David Zopfs; Amit Gupta; Frank Philipp Graner; Jan Borggrefe; Robert Gilkeson; Nikhil Ramaiya Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Charlotte Zaeske; Martin Merkt; Kai Roman Laukamp; Robert Peter Reimer; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe; Nils Grosse Hokamp Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mark Sherlock; Andrew Scarsbrook; Afroze Abbas; Sheila Fraser; Padiporn Limumpornpetch; Rosemary Dineen; Paul M Stewart Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Ahmad Hashmi; Markus Obmann; Vivian Ho; Nils Große Hokamp; Frank Philipp Graner; Robert Gilkeson; Thorsten Persigehl; Amit Gupta; Nikhil Ramaiya Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 4.379