Florian Janisch1,2, Shahrokh F Shariat3,4,5,6,7,8, Pascal Baltzer9, Harun Fajkovic1, Shoji Kimura1,10, Takehiro Iwata1,11, Philipp Korn1, Lin Yang12,13,14, Petr V Glybochko15, Michael Rink2, Mohammad Abufaraj1,16. 1. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Urology, Medical University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 4. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 5. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 6. Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 7. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 8. Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at. 9. Division of General and Pediatric Radiology, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 10. Department of Urology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 11. Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan. 12. Department of Epidemiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 13. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Canada. 14. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 15. Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia. 16. Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature evaluating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC and meta-analyse available data. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of MDCTU to other radiologic modalities. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic research using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science libraries was performed on November 1st, 2018. We included all original articles investigating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC using histopathology as the reference standard for true positives and an unsuspicious clinical follow-up of at least 1 year for true negatives. RESULTS: Overall, 13 studies comprising 1233 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In patient-based analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92% (CI 0.85-0.96) and 95% (CI 0.88-0.98), respectively. The reported sensitivity in the per-lesion analysis ranged between 91 and 97%. All studies reporting segment-based analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (> 90%). While one study reported higher accuracy of retrograde ureteropyelography than MDCTU (97% vs. 94%), another study demonstrated an inferior accuracy of intravenous pyelogram compared to MDCTU. Findings on the accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to MDCTU were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: MDCTU has excellent diagnostic performance in detecting UTUC and ruling-out suspicious upper urinary tract lesions in per-patient and per-lesion-based analyses. We confirm the choice of MDCTU as the radiologic diagnostic modality of choice for work-up of suspicious upper urinary tract lesions providing valuable information in patient counseling, decision-making, and treatment planning.
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature evaluating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC and meta-analyse available data. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of MDCTU to other radiologic modalities. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic research using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science libraries was performed on November 1st, 2018. We included all original articles investigating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC using histopathology as the reference standard for true positives and an unsuspicious clinical follow-up of at least 1 year for true negatives. RESULTS: Overall, 13 studies comprising 1233 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In patient-based analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92% (CI 0.85-0.96) and 95% (CI 0.88-0.98), respectively. The reported sensitivity in the per-lesion analysis ranged between 91 and 97%. All studies reporting segment-based analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (> 90%). While one study reported higher accuracy of retrograde ureteropyelography than MDCTU (97% vs. 94%), another study demonstrated an inferior accuracy of intravenous pyelogram compared to MDCTU. Findings on the accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to MDCTU were inconsistent. CONCLUSION:MDCTU has excellent diagnostic performance in detecting UTUC and ruling-out suspicious upper urinary tract lesions in per-patient and per-lesion-based analyses. We confirm the choice of MDCTU as the radiologic diagnostic modality of choice for work-up of suspicious upper urinary tract lesions providing valuable information in patient counseling, decision-making, and treatment planning.
Authors: Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Ashish M Kamat; Peter C Black; Petros Grivas; Shahrokh F Shariat; Marek Babjuk Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 16.430
Authors: Victor M Schuettfort; Benjamin Pradere; Fahad Quhal; Hadi Mostafaei; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Keiichiro Mori; Reza Sari Motlagh; Michael Rink; David D'Andrea; Mohammad Abufaraj; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Paola Martingano; Marco F M Cavallaro; Alessandro M Bozzato; Elisa Baratella; Maria A Cova Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Keiichiro Mori; Irene Resch; Noriyoshi Miura; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Victor M Schuettfort; Benjamin Pradere; Satoshi Katayama; David D'Andrea; Mehdi Kardoust Parizi; Mohammad Abufaraj; Wataru Fukuokaya; Claudia Collà Ruvolo; Stefano Luzzago; Sophie Knipper; Carlotta Palumbo; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Alberto Briganti; Dmitry V Enikeev; Morgan Rouprêt; Vitaly Margulis; Shin Egawa; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: David D'Andrea; Surena Matin; Peter C Black; Firas G Petros; Homayoun Zargar; Colin P Dinney; Michael S Cookson; Wassim Kassouf; Marc A Dall'Era; John S McGrath; Jonathan L Wright; Andrew C Thorpe; Todd M Morgan; Jeffrey M Holzbeierlein; Trinity J Bivalacqua; Srikala S Sridhar; Scott North; Daniel A Barocas; Yair Lotan; Andrew J Stephenson; Bas W van Rhijn; Philippe E Spiess; Siamak Daneshmand; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 5.588