umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, ISSN 1558-7673, E-ISSN 1938-0682, Vol. 17, no 2, p. E345-E355Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: To systematically assessed the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) compared to other imaging modalities for diagnosing and staging renal-cell carcinoma in adults.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through various electronic databases. Data from the selected studies were extracted and pooled, and median sensitivity and specificity were calculated wherever possible. Forty studies analyzing data of 4354 patients were included. They examined CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography-CT, and ultrasound (US).

Results: For CT, median sensitivity and specificity were 88% (interquartile range [IQR] 81%-94%) and 75% (IQR 51%-90%), and for MRI they were 87.5% (IQR 75.25%-100%) and 89% (IQR 75%-96%). Staging sensitivity and specificity for CT were 87% and 74.5%, while MRI showed a median sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 75%. For US, the results varied greatly depending on the corresponding technique. Contrast-enhanced US had a median diagnostic sensitivity of 93% (IQR 88.75%-98.25%) combined with mediocre specificity. The diagnostic performance of unenhanced US was poor. For positron emission tomography-CT, diagnostic accuracy values were good but were based on only a small amount of data. Limitations include the strong heterogeneity of data due to the large variety in imaging techniques and tumor histotypes. Contrast-enhanced CT and MRI remain the diagnostic mainstay for renal-cell carcinoma, with almost equally high diagnostic and staging accuracy.

Conclusion: For specific questions, a combination of different imaging techniques such as CT or MRI and contrast-enhanced US may be useful. There is a need for future large prospective studies to further increase the quality of evidence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019. Vol. 17, no 2, p. E345-E355
Keywords [en]
Computed tomography, Kidney cancer, MRI, PET, Ultrasound
National Category
Medical Image Processing
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-158587DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024ISI: 000464949500013PubMedID: 30528378OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-158587DiVA, id: diva2:1318347
Available from: 2019-05-27 Created: 2019-05-27 Last updated: 2019-05-27Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Ljungberg, Börje

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ljungberg, BörjeGiles, Rachel H.
By organisation
Urology and Andrology
In the same journal
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
Medical Image Processing

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 9 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf