4.6 Review

MRI for the detection of small malignant renal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1194128

Keywords

MRI; classification; meta-analysis; small renal mass; diagnosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to review the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating small malignant renal masses from benign ones. The results showed that MRI had moderate diagnostic performance with significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity and specificity.
Objective: We aimed to review the available evidence on the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating malignant from benign small renal masses.Methods: An electronic literature search of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar was performed to identify relevant articles up to 31 January 2023. We included studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of using magnetic resonance imaging to differentiate small (<= 4 cm) malignant from benign renal masses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated using the bivariate model and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model. The study quality evaluation was performed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Results: A total of 10 studies with 860 small renal masses (815 patients) were included in the current meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the studies for the detection of malignant masses were 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.67-0.92), respectively.Conclusions: MRI had a moderate diagnostic performance in differentiating small malignant renal masses from benign ones. Substantial heterogeneity was observed between studies for both sensitivity and specificity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available