We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
Diagnostic Performance of DWI for Differentiating High- From Low-Grade Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2017 December
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to review the diagnostic performance of DWI for differentiating high- from low-grade clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched up to March 15, 2017. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that used DWI for differentiating high- from low-grade clear cell RCC compared with histopathologic results of Fuhrman grade based on nephrectomy or biopsy specimens in original research articles. Two independent reviewers assessed methodologic quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of the included studies were pooled and graphically presented using a hierarchic summary ROC plot. For heterogeneity exploration, we assessed the presence of a threshold effect and performed meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS: Eight retrospective studies (394 patients with 397 clear cell RCCs) were included. Pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.85) with a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70-0.94). A considerable threshold effect was observed with a correlation coefficient of 0.811 (95% CI, 0.248-0.964) between the sensitivity and false-positive rate. At meta-regression analysis, apparent diffusion coefficient (× 10 mm2 /s) cutoff value (< 1.57 vs ≥ 1.57; p = 0.03) and location of ROI (solid portion vs whole tumor; p = 0.04) were significant factors affecting heterogeneity. Other factors with regard to patients and tumors, study, and MRI characteristics were not significant (p = 0.17-0.91).
CONCLUSION: DWI shows moderate diagnostic performance for differentiating high-from low-grade clear cell RCC. Substantial heterogeneity was observed because of a threshold effect. Further prospective studies may be needed; all included studies were retrospective.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched up to March 15, 2017. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that used DWI for differentiating high- from low-grade clear cell RCC compared with histopathologic results of Fuhrman grade based on nephrectomy or biopsy specimens in original research articles. Two independent reviewers assessed methodologic quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity of the included studies were pooled and graphically presented using a hierarchic summary ROC plot. For heterogeneity exploration, we assessed the presence of a threshold effect and performed meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS: Eight retrospective studies (394 patients with 397 clear cell RCCs) were included. Pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.68-0.85) with a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70-0.94). A considerable threshold effect was observed with a correlation coefficient of 0.811 (95% CI, 0.248-0.964) between the sensitivity and false-positive rate. At meta-regression analysis, apparent diffusion coefficient (× 10 mm2 /s) cutoff value (< 1.57 vs ≥ 1.57; p = 0.03) and location of ROI (solid portion vs whole tumor; p = 0.04) were significant factors affecting heterogeneity. Other factors with regard to patients and tumors, study, and MRI characteristics were not significant (p = 0.17-0.91).
CONCLUSION: DWI shows moderate diagnostic performance for differentiating high-from low-grade clear cell RCC. Substantial heterogeneity was observed because of a threshold effect. Further prospective studies may be needed; all included studies were retrospective.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app