Min Xuan1, Fengsheng Zhou1, Yan Ding1, Qiaoying Zhu1, Ji Dong1, Hao Zhou1, Jun Cheng1, Xiao Jiang1, Pengxi Wu2. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 299 Qingyang Road, Wuxi, 214023, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Ultrasound, Wuxi People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 299 Qingyang Road, Wuxi, 214023, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China. wupengxi2155@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To review the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) used to detect residual or recurrent liver tumors after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). This technique uses contrast-enhanced computer tomography or/and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as the gold standard of investigation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE were systematically searched for all potentially eligible studies comparing CEUS with the reference standard that follows RFA. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were addressed by adopting the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled point estimates for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) with 95% CI were computed before plotting the sROC (summary receiver operating characteristic) curve. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to identify the source of the heterogeneity that was detected. Publication bias was evaluated using Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies on 1162 lesions that occurred between 2001 and 2016 were included in the final analysis. The quality of the included studies assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool was considered reasonable. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS in detecting residual or recurrent liver tumors had the following values: 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), respectively. Overall DOR was 420.10 (95% CI 142.30-1240.20). The sources of heterogeneity could not be precisely identified by meta-regression or subgroup analysis. No evidence of publication bias was found. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that CEUS exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in assessing therapeutic responses to RFA for liver tumors.
BACKGROUND: To review the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) used to detect residual or recurrent liver tumors after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). This technique uses contrast-enhanced computer tomography or/and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as the gold standard of investigation. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE were systematically searched for all potentially eligible studies comparing CEUS with the reference standard that follows RFA. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were addressed by adopting the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Pooled point estimates for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) with 95% CI were computed before plotting the sROC (summary receiver operating characteristic) curve. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were used to identify the source of the heterogeneity that was detected. Publication bias was evaluated using Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies on 1162 lesions that occurred between 2001 and 2016 were included in the final analysis. The quality of the included studies assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool was considered reasonable. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS in detecting residual or recurrent liver tumors had the following values: 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00), respectively. Overall DOR was 420.10 (95% CI 142.30-1240.20). The sources of heterogeneity could not be precisely identified by meta-regression or subgroup analysis. No evidence of publication bias was found. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that CEUS exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in assessing therapeutic responses to RFA for liver tumors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; Liver tumor; Radio frequency ablation; Systematic review
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: M F Meloni; S N Goldberg; T Livraghi; F Calliada; P Ricci; M Rossi; D Pallavicini; R Campani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Shandra Bipat; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Emile F I Comans; Milan E J Pijl; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-08-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P Ricci; V Cantisani; F Drudi; E Pagliara; M Bezzi; F Meloni; F Calliada; S M Erturk; V D'Andrea; U D'Ambrosio; R Passariello Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2009-03-11 Impact factor: 6.548