Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (MDCTU) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Florian Janisch, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Pascal Baltzer, Harun Fajkovic, Shoji Kimura, Takehiro Iwata, Philipp Korn, Lin Yang, Petr V. Glybochko, Michael Rink, Mohammad Abufaraj

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically review the literature evaluating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC and meta-analyse available data. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of MDCTU to other radiologic modalities. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic research using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science libraries was performed on November 1st, 2018. We included all original articles investigating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC using histopathology as the reference standard for true positives and an unsuspicious clinical follow-up of at least 1 year for true negatives. Results: Overall, 13 studies comprising 1233 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In patient-based analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92% (CI 0.85–0.96) and 95% (CI 0.88–0.98), respectively. The reported sensitivity in the per-lesion analysis ranged between 91 and 97%. All studies reporting segment-based analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (> 90%). While one study reported higher accuracy of retrograde ureteropyelography than MDCTU (97% vs. 94%), another study demonstrated an inferior accuracy of intravenous pyelogram compared to MDCTU. Findings on the accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to MDCTU were inconsistent. Conclusion: MDCTU has excellent diagnostic performance in detecting UTUC and ruling-out suspicious upper urinary tract lesions in per-patient and per-lesion-based analyses. We confirm the choice of MDCTU as the radiologic diagnostic modality of choice for work-up of suspicious upper urinary tract lesions providing valuable information in patient counseling, decision-making, and treatment planning.

Original languageEnglish
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Carcinoma
Urinary Tract
Library Science
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Urography
PubMed
Counseling
Decision Making
Sensitivity and Specificity
Research
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Diagnostic accuracy
  • Imaging
  • MDCTU
  • Meta-analysis
  • Systematic review
  • UTUC

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (MDCTU) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) : a systematic review and meta-analysis. / Janisch, Florian; Shariat, Shahrokh F.; Baltzer, Pascal; Fajkovic, Harun; Kimura, Shoji; Iwata, Takehiro; Korn, Philipp; Yang, Lin; Glybochko, Petr V.; Rink, Michael; Abufaraj, Mohammad.

In: World Journal of Urology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Janisch, Florian ; Shariat, Shahrokh F. ; Baltzer, Pascal ; Fajkovic, Harun ; Kimura, Shoji ; Iwata, Takehiro ; Korn, Philipp ; Yang, Lin ; Glybochko, Petr V. ; Rink, Michael ; Abufaraj, Mohammad. / Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (MDCTU) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) : a systematic review and meta-analysis. In: World Journal of Urology. 2019.
@article{d8237377c5d34ef4a85b2a3c961b5a92,
title = "Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (MDCTU) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): a systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Purpose: To systematically review the literature evaluating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC and meta-analyse available data. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of MDCTU to other radiologic modalities. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic research using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science libraries was performed on November 1st, 2018. We included all original articles investigating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC using histopathology as the reference standard for true positives and an unsuspicious clinical follow-up of at least 1 year for true negatives. Results: Overall, 13 studies comprising 1233 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In patient-based analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92{\%} (CI 0.85–0.96) and 95{\%} (CI 0.88–0.98), respectively. The reported sensitivity in the per-lesion analysis ranged between 91 and 97{\%}. All studies reporting segment-based analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (> 90{\%}). While one study reported higher accuracy of retrograde ureteropyelography than MDCTU (97{\%} vs. 94{\%}), another study demonstrated an inferior accuracy of intravenous pyelogram compared to MDCTU. Findings on the accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to MDCTU were inconsistent. Conclusion: MDCTU has excellent diagnostic performance in detecting UTUC and ruling-out suspicious upper urinary tract lesions in per-patient and per-lesion-based analyses. We confirm the choice of MDCTU as the radiologic diagnostic modality of choice for work-up of suspicious upper urinary tract lesions providing valuable information in patient counseling, decision-making, and treatment planning.",
keywords = "Diagnostic accuracy, Imaging, MDCTU, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, UTUC",
author = "Florian Janisch and Shariat, {Shahrokh F.} and Pascal Baltzer and Harun Fajkovic and Shoji Kimura and Takehiro Iwata and Philipp Korn and Lin Yang and Glybochko, {Petr V.} and Michael Rink and Mohammad Abufaraj",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00345-019-02875-8",
language = "English",
journal = "World Journal of Urology",
issn = "0724-4983",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomographic (MDCTU) in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC)

T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Janisch, Florian

AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F.

AU - Baltzer, Pascal

AU - Fajkovic, Harun

AU - Kimura, Shoji

AU - Iwata, Takehiro

AU - Korn, Philipp

AU - Yang, Lin

AU - Glybochko, Petr V.

AU - Rink, Michael

AU - Abufaraj, Mohammad

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To systematically review the literature evaluating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC and meta-analyse available data. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of MDCTU to other radiologic modalities. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic research using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science libraries was performed on November 1st, 2018. We included all original articles investigating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC using histopathology as the reference standard for true positives and an unsuspicious clinical follow-up of at least 1 year for true negatives. Results: Overall, 13 studies comprising 1233 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In patient-based analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92% (CI 0.85–0.96) and 95% (CI 0.88–0.98), respectively. The reported sensitivity in the per-lesion analysis ranged between 91 and 97%. All studies reporting segment-based analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (> 90%). While one study reported higher accuracy of retrograde ureteropyelography than MDCTU (97% vs. 94%), another study demonstrated an inferior accuracy of intravenous pyelogram compared to MDCTU. Findings on the accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to MDCTU were inconsistent. Conclusion: MDCTU has excellent diagnostic performance in detecting UTUC and ruling-out suspicious upper urinary tract lesions in per-patient and per-lesion-based analyses. We confirm the choice of MDCTU as the radiologic diagnostic modality of choice for work-up of suspicious upper urinary tract lesions providing valuable information in patient counseling, decision-making, and treatment planning.

AB - Purpose: To systematically review the literature evaluating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC and meta-analyse available data. We also compared the diagnostic accuracy of MDCTU to other radiologic modalities. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. A systematic research using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science libraries was performed on November 1st, 2018. We included all original articles investigating the performance of MDCTU for the diagnosis of UTUC using histopathology as the reference standard for true positives and an unsuspicious clinical follow-up of at least 1 year for true negatives. Results: Overall, 13 studies comprising 1233 patients were eligible and included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. In patient-based analyses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 92% (CI 0.85–0.96) and 95% (CI 0.88–0.98), respectively. The reported sensitivity in the per-lesion analysis ranged between 91 and 97%. All studies reporting segment-based analysis demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy (> 90%). While one study reported higher accuracy of retrograde ureteropyelography than MDCTU (97% vs. 94%), another study demonstrated an inferior accuracy of intravenous pyelogram compared to MDCTU. Findings on the accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared to MDCTU were inconsistent. Conclusion: MDCTU has excellent diagnostic performance in detecting UTUC and ruling-out suspicious upper urinary tract lesions in per-patient and per-lesion-based analyses. We confirm the choice of MDCTU as the radiologic diagnostic modality of choice for work-up of suspicious upper urinary tract lesions providing valuable information in patient counseling, decision-making, and treatment planning.

KW - Diagnostic accuracy

KW - Imaging

KW - MDCTU

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Systematic review

KW - UTUC

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069183607&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85069183607&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00345-019-02875-8

DO - 10.1007/s00345-019-02875-8

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85069183607

JO - World Journal of Urology

JF - World Journal of Urology

SN - 0724-4983

ER -