Matthew A Chiarello1, Rahul D Mali1, Stella K Kang1,2. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Ave, New York, NY 10016. 2. 2 Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of MRI in differentiation of papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from other renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed searches of three electronic databases for studies that used MRI techniques to differentiate papillary RCC from other renal lesions. Methodologic quality was assessed, and diagnostic test accuracy was summarized using bivariate random-effects modeling or with construction of a summary ROC (SROC) curve. RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 275 papillary RCC lesions and 758 other renal masses met the inclusion criteria. Resulting summary estimates for the performance of MRI to differentiate papillary RCC from other renal lesions were a sensitivity of 79.6% (95% CI, 62.3-90.2%) and specificity of 88.1% (95% CI, 80.1-93.1%). In subgroup analysis, quantitative pooling of seven studies using enhancement in the corticomedullary phase resulted in a sensitivity of 85.6% (95% CI, 67.8-94.4%), specificity of 91.7% (95% CI, 76.0-97.5%), and area under the SROC curve of 0.894. Four studies used tumor appearance on T2-weighted imaging to detect papillary RCC, and results showed a pooled sensitivity of 89.9% (95% CI, 73.0-96.7%) and specificity of 84.9% (95% CI, 69.0-93.4%). Three studies used signal loss on T1-weighted in-phase imaging to detect papillary RCC but marked heterogeneity precluded pooling. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis supports moderate sensitivity and excellent specificity of quantitative enhancement in the corticomedullary phase for differentiating papillary RCC from other tumors. The accuracy of combining enhancement and T2 signal-intensity characteristics merits further evaluation as a potential aid for management decisions.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of MRI in differentiation of papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from other renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed searches of three electronic databases for studies that used MRI techniques to differentiate papillary RCC from other renal lesions. Methodologic quality was assessed, and diagnostic test accuracy was summarized using bivariate random-effects modeling or with construction of a summary ROC (SROC) curve. RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 275 papillary RCC lesions and 758 other renal masses met the inclusion criteria. Resulting summary estimates for the performance of MRI to differentiate papillary RCC from other renal lesions were a sensitivity of 79.6% (95% CI, 62.3-90.2%) and specificity of 88.1% (95% CI, 80.1-93.1%). In subgroup analysis, quantitative pooling of seven studies using enhancement in the corticomedullary phase resulted in a sensitivity of 85.6% (95% CI, 67.8-94.4%), specificity of 91.7% (95% CI, 76.0-97.5%), and area under the SROC curve of 0.894. Four studies used tumor appearance on T2-weighted imaging to detect papillary RCC, and results showed a pooled sensitivity of 89.9% (95% CI, 73.0-96.7%) and specificity of 84.9% (95% CI, 69.0-93.4%). Three studies used signal loss on T1-weighted in-phase imaging to detect papillary RCC but marked heterogeneity precluded pooling. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis supports moderate sensitivity and excellent specificity of quantitative enhancement in the corticomedullary phase for differentiating papillary RCC from other tumors. The accuracy of combining enhancement and T2 signal-intensity characteristics merits further evaluation as a potential aid for management decisions.
Authors: J G Lijmer; B W Mol; S Heisterkamp; G J Bonsel; M H Prins; J H van der Meulen; P M Bossuyt Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ankur M Doshi; Justin M Ream; Andrea S Kierans; Matthew Bilbily; Henry Rusinek; William C Huang; Hersh Chandarana Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Katherine E Maturen; Hanh V Nghiem; Elaine M Caoili; Ellen G Higgins; J Stuart Wolf; David P Wood Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: H Shinmoto; Y Yuasa; A Tanimoto; Y Narimatsu; M Jinzaki; K Hiramatsu; M Mukai Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M Raquel Oliva; Jonathan N Glickman; Kelly H Zou; Sze Y Teo; Koenraad J Mortelé; Manoel S Rocha; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S Sevcenco; L Ponhold; D Javor; F E Kuehhas; J Mauermann; A Miernik; M Schoenthaler; P A Baltzer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 4.226
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