Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Versus Histopathologic Study for Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Cardiac Tumours: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Background: The gold standard for diagnosis of cardiac tumours is histopathological examination. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a valuable non-invasive, radiation-free tool for identifying and characterizing cardiac tumours. Our aim is to understand CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours by distinguishing benign vs. malignant tumours compared to the gold standard.

Methods: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to December 2022, and the results were reviewed by 2 independent investigators. Studies reporting CMR diagnosis were included in a meta-analysis, and pooled measures were obtained. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tools from the National Institutes of Health.

Results: A total of 2,321 results was obtained; 10 studies were eligible, including one identified by citation search. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, which presented a pooled sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 94%, a diagnostic odds ratio of 185, and an area under the curve of 0.98 for CMR diagnosis of benign vs. malignant tumours. Additionally, 4 studies evaluated whether CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours matched specific histopathological subtypes, with 73.6% achieving the correct diagnosis.

Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published systematic review on CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours. Compared to histopathological results, the ability to discriminate benign from malignant tumours was good but not outstanding. However, significant heterogeneity may have had an impact on our findings.