scholarly journals The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Differentiating Testicular Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (19) ◽  
pp. 8990
Author(s):  
Antonio Tufano ◽  
Rocco Simone Flammia ◽  
Luca Antonelli ◽  
Rocco Minelli ◽  
Giorgio Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽  
Diagnostic Modality ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Ultrasound (US) still represents the mainstay of scrotal imaging. However, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a relatively novel, but increasingly utilized diagnostic modality. In consequence, we performed a systematic review (SR) and pooled meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic performance of CEUS in the evaluation of testicular masses (TM). A SR up to June 2021 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was evaluated basing on two different endpoints: neoplastic vs. non-neoplastic and malignant vs. benign TM. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) from eligible studies were pooled and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were constructed for each endpoint. Overall, six qualified studies were deemed suitable for this meta-analysis. Diagnostic performance of CEUS showed an accuracy of 0.96 in detecting neoplastic masses (sensitivity of 0.89, PPV of 0.85, specificity of 0.62, and NPV of 0.69) and an accuracy of 0.96 in detecting malignant masses (sensitivity of 0.86, PPV of 0.73, specificity of 0.87, and NPV of 0.91). Taken together, CEUS may represent a promising minimally invasive diagnostic tool for characterization of TM, since it allows clinicians to identify neoplastic lesions and exclude malignant tumor.

scholarly journals Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound with MRI in the diagnosis of complex cystic renal masses: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (10) ◽  
pp. 1254-1263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linli Zhou ◽  
Lemin Tang ◽  
Tao Yang ◽  
Wei Chen
Keyword(s):  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Negative Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Efficacy ◽  
Renal Masses ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Background The differential diagnosis of cystic renal masses still faces great challenges. There has been no systematically assessment to compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of cystic renal masses. Purpose To perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic efficacy of CEUS with that of MRI for cystic renal masses. Material and Methods A systematic search was performed for literature evaluating the diagnostic performance of CEUS or MRI in cystic renal masses. Quality assessment of diagnostic studies 2 (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the quality of each study included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and the areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUCs-SROC) curve for CEUS and MRI were calculated, respectively. Results Seventeen studies with 1142 lesions were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for CEUS /MRI were 0.95/0.92, 0.84/0.91, 5.62/6.74, and 0.09/0.13, respectively. The AUCs-SROC curves for the two methods were 95.66% and 94.65%. The subgroup analysis indicated that the scanning slice thickness may influence the diagnostic efficacy of MRI. Conclusion Both CEUS and MRI have good diagnostic performance for cystic renal masses and can provide the reference for clinicians. CEUS is more sensitive but less specific than MRI.

scholarly journals Qualitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of small, TR3–5 benign and malignant thyroid nodules measuring ≤1 cm

2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (1111) ◽  
pp. 20190923
Author(s):  
Xin Li ◽  
Feng Gao ◽  
Fan Li ◽  
Xiao-xia Han ◽  
Si-hui Shao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Predictive Value ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Negative Predictive Value ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Thyroid Nodules ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Objective: To evaluate the performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of small, solid, TR3–5 benign and malignant thyroid nodules (≤1 cm). Methods: From January 2016 to March 2018, 185 thyroid nodules from 154 patients who underwent contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and fine-needle aspiration or thyroidectomy in Shanghai General Hospital were included. The χ2 test was used to compare the CEUS characteristics of benign and malignant thyroid nodules, and the CEUS features of malignant nodules assigned scores. The total score of the CEUS features and the scores of the above nodules were evaluated according to the latest 2017 version of the Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS). The diagnostic performance of the two were compared based on the receiver operating characteristic curves generated for benign and malignant thyroid nodules. Results: The degree, enhancement patterns, boundary, shape, and homogeneity of enhancement in thyroid small solid nodules were significantly different (p＜0.05). No significant differences were seen between benign and malignant thyroid nodules regarding completeness of enhancement and size of enhanced lesions (p＞0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the TI-RADS classification TR5 in diagnosis of malignant nodules were 90.10%, 55.95%, 74.59%, 72.22%, and 82.46%, respectively (area under the curve [AUC]=0.738; 95% confidence interval[CI], 0.663–0.813). The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the total score of CEUS qualitative analysis indicators were 86.13%, 89.29%, 87.57%, 90.63%, and 84.27% respectively (AUC = 0.916; 95% CI, 0.871–0.961). Conclusion: CEUS qualitative analysis is superior to TI-RADS in evaluating the diagnostic performance of small, solid thyroid nodules. Qualitative analysis of CEUS has a significantly higher specificity for diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules than TI-RADS. Advances in knowledge: The 2017 version of TI-RADS has recently suggested the malignant stratification of thyroid nodules by ultrasound. In this paper we applied this system and CEUS to evaluate 185 nodules and compare the results with pathological findings to access the diagnostic performance.

Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 20210509
Author(s):  
Chau Hung Lee ◽  
Balamurugan Vellayappan ◽  
Cher Heng Tan
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
B Value ◽  
High B Value ◽  
Lower Specificity ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing diagnostic performance and inter reader agreement between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Methods: A systematic review was performed, searching the major biomedical databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus), using the keywords “PIRADS 2.1” or “PI RADS 2.1” or “PI-RADS 2.1”. Studies reporting on head-to-head diagnostic comparison between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Summary receiver operator characteristic graphs were plotted. Analysis was performed for whole gland, and pre-planned subgroup analysis was performed by tumour location (whole gland vs transition zone (TZ)), high b-value DWI (b-value ≥1400 s/mm2), and reader experience (<5 years vs ≥5 years with prostate MRI interpretation). Inter-reader agreement and pooled rates of csPCa for PI-RADS 1–3 lesions were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool v. 2 (QUADAS-2). Results: Eight studies (1836 patients, 1921 lesions) were included. Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for whole gland (0.62 vs 0.66, p = 0.02). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.17, 0.31, 0.41). Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for TZ only (0.67 vs 0.72, p = 0.01). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.06, 0.36, 0.17). Amongst studies utilising diffusion-weighted imaging with highest b-value of ≥1400 s/mm2, pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.52, 0.4, 0.5, 0.47). There were no significant differences in pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 for less-experienced readers (p = 0.65, 0.37, 0.65, 0.81) and for more experienced readers (p = 0.57, 0.90, 0.91, 0.65). For PI-RADS v. 2.1 alone, there were no significant differences in pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV between less and more experienced readers (p = 0.38, 0.70, 1, 0.48). Inter-reader agreement was moderate to substantial for both PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. There were no significant differences between pooled csPCa rates between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 for PI-RADS 1–2 lesions (6.6% vs  7.3%, p = 0.53), or PI-RADS 3 lesions (24.1% vs  26.8%, p = 0.28). Conclusions: Diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS v. 2.1 is comparable to PI-RADS v. 2, however the significantly lower specificity of PI-RADS v. 2.1 may result in increased number of unnecessary biopsies. Advances in knowledge: 1. Compared to PI-RADS v. 2, PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a non-significantly higher sensitivity but a significantly lower specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. 2. PI-RADS v. 2.1 could potentially result in considerable increase in number of negative targeted biopsy rates for PI-RADS 3 lesions, which could have been potentially avoided.

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis

The Breast ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 13-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Stefano Tagliafico ◽  
Bianca Bignotti ◽  
Federica Rossi ◽  
Alessio Signori ◽  
Maria Pia Sormani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

scholarly journals Comparison of conventional, doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052830
Author(s):  
Lizhang Xun ◽  
Lamei Zhai ◽  
Hui Xu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Doppler Us ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasonography ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Ovarian Masses

ObjectivesTo assess the value of conventional, Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) (conventional ultrasonography (US), Doppler US and CEUS) for diagnosing ovarian cancer.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies published until October 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies assessed the diagnostic value of conventional US, Doppler US or CEUS for detecting ovarian cancer, with no restrictions placed on published language and status.Data extraction and synthesisThe study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled using the bivariate generalised linear mixed model and random effects model.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 72 studies and involved 9296 women who presented with ovarian masses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for conventional US were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.91), 6.87 (95% CI: 4.98 to 9.49) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.15), 57.52 (95% CI: 36.64 to 90.28) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for Doppler US were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.89), 6.10 (95% CI: 4.59 to 8.11) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.11), 61.76 (95% CI: 39.99 to 95.37) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for CEUS were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.95), 11.47 (95% CI: 6.52 to 20.17) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09), 152.11 (95% CI: 77.77 to 297.51) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99), respectively. Moreover, the AUC values for conventional US (p=0.002) and Doppler US (p=0.005) were inferior to those of CEUS.ConclusionsConventional US, Doppler US and CEUS have a relatively high differential diagnostic value for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to that of conventional US and Doppler US.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document