Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Utility of ADC Values for Differentiating Uterine Sarcomas From Leiomyomas: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Woo, Sungmin; Beier, Sarah R; Tong, Angela; Hindman, Nicole M; Vargas, Hebert A; Kang, Stella K.
Afiliação
  • Woo S; Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
  • Beier SR; Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
  • Tong A; Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
  • Hindman NM; Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
  • Vargas HA; Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
  • Kang SK; Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 2024 Jun 20.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38899844
ABSTRACT

Background:

Uterine sarcomas are rare; however, they display imaging features that overlap those of leiomyomas. The potential for undetected uterine sarcomas is clinically relevant because minimally invasive treatment of leiomyomas may lead to cancer dissemination. ADC values have shown potential for differentiating benign and malignant uterine masses.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the diagnostic performance of ADC values in differentiating uterine sarcomas from leiomyomas. Evidence acquisition We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases) for studies distinguishing uterine sarcomas from leiomyomas using MRI, including ADC, with pathologic tissue confirmation or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Data extraction and QUADAS-2 quality assessment were performed. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using hierarchic models, including bivariate and hierarchic summary ROC models. Metaregression was used to assess the impact of various factors on heterogeneity. Evidence

synthesis:

Twenty-one studies met study inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 89% (95% CI, 82-94%) and 86% (95% CI, 78-92%), respectively. Area under the summary ROC curve was 94% (95% CI, 92-96%). Context of ADC interpretation (i.e., standalone vs part of multiparametric MRI [mpMRI]) was the only factor found to account significantly for heterogeneity (p = .01). Higher specificity (95% [95% CI, 92-99%] vs 82% [95% CI, 75-89%]) and similar sensitivity (94% [95% CI, 89-99%] vs 88% [95% CI, 82-93%]) were observed when ADC was evaluated among mpMRI features as compared with standalone ADC assessment. ADC cutoff values ranged (0.87-1.29 × 10-3 mm2/s) but were not associated with statistically different performance (p = .37). Pooled mean ADC values in sarcomas and leiomyomas were 0.904 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.287 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively.

Conclusion:

As part of mpMRI evaluation of uterine masses, mass ADC value less than 0.904 × 10-3 mm2/s may be a useful test-positive threshold for uterine sarcoma, consistent with a prior expert consensus statement. Institutional protocols may influence locally selected ADC values. Clinical Impact Using ADC as part of mpMRI assessment improves detection of uterine sarcoma, which could influence candidate selection for minimally invasive treatments.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: AJR Am J Roentgenol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Bases de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: AJR Am J Roentgenol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos