Diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities for splenic malignancies: A comparative meta-analysis

IF 1.8 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Parya Valizadeh , Payam Jannatdoust , Mohammadreza Tahamtan , Hamed Ghorani , Soroush Soleimani Dorcheh , Khashayar Farnoud , Faeze Salahshour
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of different imaging modalities for splenic malignancies: A comparative meta-analysis","authors":"Parya Valizadeh ,&nbsp;Payam Jannatdoust ,&nbsp;Mohammadreza Tahamtan ,&nbsp;Hamed Ghorani ,&nbsp;Soroush Soleimani Dorcheh ,&nbsp;Khashayar Farnoud ,&nbsp;Faeze Salahshour","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2024.100566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>The spleen hosts both benign and malignant lesions. Despite multiple imaging modalities, the distinction between these lesions poses a diagnostic challenge, marked by varying diagnostic accuracy levels across methods. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of various imaging techniques for detecting malignant splenic lesions.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for studies evaluating imaging techniques in detecting malignant splenic lesions. Data extraction included diagnostic accuracy metrics, and methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Diagnostic Test Accuracy meta-analyses were conducted using R (version: 4.2.1). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to compare different modalities and clinical settings.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Our study included 28 studies (pooled sample size: 2358), primarily using retrospective designs with histopathology as the reference standard. PET scan demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 92 %), demonstrating a sensitivity of 93 % (95 % CI: 80.4 % - 97.7 %) and a specificity of 82.8 % (95 % CI: 71.1 % - 90.4 %). Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), Contrast-enhanced CT scan, and contrast-enhanced MRI also showed impressive performance with AUCs of 91.4 %, 90.9 %, and 85.3 %, respectively. Differences among these modalities were not statistically significant, but they outperformed non-contrast-enhanced methods. PET and CEUS exhibited higher specificity for lymphoma cases compared to studies including other malignancies.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion and clinical implications</h3><p>Overall, PET emerges as the best modality for splenic malignancies, and CEUS and CE-MRI show promise as potential alternatives, notably due to their reduced radiation exposure. Further research is essential for precise malignancy differentiation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047724000212/pdfft?md5=abf75c25948df04dfa47eb2153f47843&pid=1-s2.0-S2352047724000212-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047724000212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives

The spleen hosts both benign and malignant lesions. Despite multiple imaging modalities, the distinction between these lesions poses a diagnostic challenge, marked by varying diagnostic accuracy levels across methods. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of various imaging techniques for detecting malignant splenic lesions.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases for studies evaluating imaging techniques in detecting malignant splenic lesions. Data extraction included diagnostic accuracy metrics, and methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Diagnostic Test Accuracy meta-analyses were conducted using R (version: 4.2.1). Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to compare different modalities and clinical settings.

Results

Our study included 28 studies (pooled sample size: 2358), primarily using retrospective designs with histopathology as the reference standard. PET scan demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 92 %), demonstrating a sensitivity of 93 % (95 % CI: 80.4 % - 97.7 %) and a specificity of 82.8 % (95 % CI: 71.1 % - 90.4 %). Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), Contrast-enhanced CT scan, and contrast-enhanced MRI also showed impressive performance with AUCs of 91.4 %, 90.9 %, and 85.3 %, respectively. Differences among these modalities were not statistically significant, but they outperformed non-contrast-enhanced methods. PET and CEUS exhibited higher specificity for lymphoma cases compared to studies including other malignancies.

Conclusion and clinical implications

Overall, PET emerges as the best modality for splenic malignancies, and CEUS and CE-MRI show promise as potential alternatives, notably due to their reduced radiation exposure. Further research is essential for precise malignancy differentiation.

不同成像模式对脾脏恶性肿瘤的诊断效果:比较荟萃分析
背景和目的脾脏同时存在良性和恶性病变。尽管有多种成像模式,但如何区分这些病变仍是一个诊断难题,不同方法的诊断准确率也不尽相同。在本研究中,我们旨在评估和比较各种成像技术在检测恶性脾脏病变方面的诊断性能。方法按照 PRISMA 指南,我们检索了 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Sciences 数据库中评估成像技术在检测恶性脾脏病变方面的研究。数据提取包括诊断准确性指标,方法学质量采用 QUADAS-2 进行评估。诊断测试准确性荟萃分析使用 R(版本:4.2.1)进行。我们的研究纳入了 28 项研究(汇总样本量:2358 个),主要采用回顾性设计,以组织病理学为参考标准。PET 扫描的诊断准确率最高(AUC:92%),灵敏度为 93%(95% CI:80.4% - 97.7%),特异性为 82.8%(95% CI:71.1% - 90.4%)。对比增强超声波 (CEUS)、对比增强 CT 扫描和对比增强 MRI 的 AUC 分别为 91.4%、90.9% 和 85.3%,同样表现出色。这些模式之间的差异没有统计学意义,但它们都优于非对比增强方法。与包括其他恶性肿瘤的研究相比,PET 和 CEUS 对淋巴瘤病例具有更高的特异性。进一步的研究对于精确区分恶性肿瘤至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信