Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review

Christian Vogel, Brigitte Ziegelmüller, Börje Ljungberg, Karim Bensalah, Axel Bex, Steven Canfield, Rachel H Giles, Milan Hora, Markus A Kuczyk, Axel S Merseburger, Thomas Powles, Laurence Albiges, Fiona Stewart, Allseandro Volpe, Anno Graser, Marcus Schlemmer, C Yuan, Thomas Lam, Michael Staehler (Corresponding Author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)345-355
Number of pages11
JournalClinical genitourinary cancer
Volume17
Issue number2
Early online date11 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Renal Cell Carcinoma
Tomography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Sensitivity and Specificity
Databases
Prospective Studies
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • computed tomography
  • kidney cancer
  • MRI
  • PET
  • ultrasound
  • Computed tomography
  • Kidney cancer
  • Ultrasound
  • CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND
  • DIAGNOSIS
  • LESIONS CHARACTERIZATION
  • SUBTYPES
  • COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY
  • FAT INVASION
  • CT
  • ANGIOMYOLIPOMA
  • VISIBLE FAT
  • DIFFERENTIATION

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Vogel, C., Ziegelmüller, B., Ljungberg, B., Bensalah, K., Bex, A., Canfield, S., ... Staehler, M. (2019). Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review. Clinical genitourinary cancer, 17(2), 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024

Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma : Systematic Review. / Vogel, Christian; Ziegelmüller, Brigitte; Ljungberg, Börje; Bensalah, Karim; Bex, Axel; Canfield, Steven; Giles, Rachel H; Hora, Milan; Kuczyk, Markus A; Merseburger, Axel S; Powles, Thomas; Albiges, Laurence; Stewart, Fiona; Volpe, Allseandro; Graser, Anno; Schlemmer, Marcus; Yuan, C; Lam, Thomas; Staehler, Michael (Corresponding Author).

In: Clinical genitourinary cancer, Vol. 17, No. 2, 30.04.2019, p. 345-355.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Vogel, C, Ziegelmüller, B, Ljungberg, B, Bensalah, K, Bex, A, Canfield, S, Giles, RH, Hora, M, Kuczyk, MA, Merseburger, AS, Powles, T, Albiges, L, Stewart, F, Volpe, A, Graser, A, Schlemmer, M, Yuan, C, Lam, T & Staehler, M 2019, 'Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review', Clinical genitourinary cancer, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024
Vogel C, Ziegelmüller B, Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Bex A, Canfield S et al. Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review. Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2019 Apr 30;17(2):345-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024
Vogel, Christian ; Ziegelmüller, Brigitte ; Ljungberg, Börje ; Bensalah, Karim ; Bex, Axel ; Canfield, Steven ; Giles, Rachel H ; Hora, Milan ; Kuczyk, Markus A ; Merseburger, Axel S ; Powles, Thomas ; Albiges, Laurence ; Stewart, Fiona ; Volpe, Allseandro ; Graser, Anno ; Schlemmer, Marcus ; Yuan, C ; Lam, Thomas ; Staehler, Michael. / Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma : Systematic Review. In: Clinical genitourinary cancer. 2019 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 345-355.
@article{1badf70cedd543baa8da30e41d13222e,
title = "Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "computed tomography, kidney cancer, MRI, PET, ultrasound, Computed tomography, Kidney cancer, Ultrasound, CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND, DIAGNOSIS, LESIONS CHARACTERIZATION, SUBTYPES, COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY, FAT INVASION, CT, ANGIOMYOLIPOMA, VISIBLE FAT, DIFFERENTIATION",
author = "Christian Vogel and Brigitte Ziegelm{\"u}ller and B{\"o}rje Ljungberg and Karim Bensalah and Axel Bex and Steven Canfield and Giles, {Rachel H} and Milan Hora and Kuczyk, {Markus A} and Merseburger, {Axel S} and Thomas Powles and Laurence Albiges and Fiona Stewart and Allseandro Volpe and Anno Graser and Marcus Schlemmer and C Yuan and Thomas Lam and Michael Staehler",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "30",
doi = "10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "345--355",
journal = "Clinical genitourinary cancer",
issn = "1558-7673",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Imaging in Suspected Renal-Cell Carcinoma

T2 - Systematic Review

AU - Vogel, Christian

AU - Ziegelmüller, Brigitte

AU - Ljungberg, Börje

AU - Bensalah, Karim

AU - Bex, Axel

AU - Canfield, Steven

AU - Giles, Rachel H

AU - Hora, Milan

AU - Kuczyk, Markus A

AU - Merseburger, Axel S

AU - Powles, Thomas

AU - Albiges, Laurence

AU - Stewart, Fiona

AU - Volpe, Allseandro

AU - Graser, Anno

AU - Schlemmer, Marcus

AU - Yuan, C

AU - Lam, Thomas

AU - Staehler, Michael

N1 - Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/4/30

Y1 - 2019/4/30

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - computed tomography

KW - kidney cancer

KW - MRI

KW - PET

KW - ultrasound

KW - Computed tomography

KW - Kidney cancer

KW - Ultrasound

KW - CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND

KW - DIAGNOSIS

KW - LESIONS CHARACTERIZATION

KW - SUBTYPES

KW - COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY

KW - FAT INVASION

KW - CT

KW - ANGIOMYOLIPOMA

KW - VISIBLE FAT

KW - DIFFERENTIATION

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057609879&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/imaging-suspected-renalcell-carcinoma-systematic-review

U2 - 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024

DO - 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024

M3 - Article

C2 - 30528378

VL - 17

SP - 345

EP - 355

JO - Clinical genitourinary cancer

JF - Clinical genitourinary cancer

SN - 1558-7673

IS - 2

ER -