Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

ADC as a useful diagnostic tool for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral bone marrow lesions and compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ADC as a useful diagnostic tool for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral bone marrow... Objectives To assess the sensitivity and specificity of quantitative assessment of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral bone marrow lesions (BMLs) and compression fractures (CFs) Methods An electronic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted. Bivariate modelling and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic modelling were performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ADC for differ- entiating vertebral BMLs. Subgroup analysis was performed for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral CFs. Meta- regression analyses according to subject, study and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) characteristics were performed. Results Twelve eligible studies (748 lesions, 661 patients) were included. The ADC exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.94) and a pooled specificity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.78–0.93) for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral BMLs. In addition, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign and malignant CFs were 0.92 (95% CI 0.82–0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94), respectively. In the meta-regression analysis, the DWI slice thickness was a significant factor affecting heterogeneity (p < 0.01); thinner slice thickness (< 5 mm) showed higher specificity (95%) than thicker slice thickness (81%). Conclusions Quantitative assessment of ADC is a useful diagnostic tool for differentiating benign and malignant http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Radiology Springer Journals

ADC as a useful diagnostic tool for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral bone marrow lesions and compression fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/adc-as-a-useful-diagnostic-tool-for-differentiating-benign-and-qdAGUVPgyc
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by European Society of Radiology
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Imaging / Radiology; Diagnostic Radiology; Interventional Radiology; Neuroradiology; Ultrasound; Internal Medicine
ISSN
0938-7994
eISSN
1432-1084
DOI
10.1007/s00330-018-5330-5
pmid
29450718
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Objectives To assess the sensitivity and specificity of quantitative assessment of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral bone marrow lesions (BMLs) and compression fractures (CFs) Methods An electronic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted. Bivariate modelling and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic modelling were performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ADC for differ- entiating vertebral BMLs. Subgroup analysis was performed for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral CFs. Meta- regression analyses according to subject, study and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) characteristics were performed. Results Twelve eligible studies (748 lesions, 661 patients) were included. The ADC exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.94) and a pooled specificity of 0.87 (95% CI 0.78–0.93) for differentiating benign and malignant vertebral BMLs. In addition, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for differentiating benign and malignant CFs were 0.92 (95% CI 0.82–0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94), respectively. In the meta-regression analysis, the DWI slice thickness was a significant factor affecting heterogeneity (p < 0.01); thinner slice thickness (< 5 mm) showed higher specificity (95%) than thicker slice thickness (81%). Conclusions Quantitative assessment of ADC is a useful diagnostic tool for differentiating benign and malignant

Journal

European RadiologySpringer Journals

Published: Feb 15, 2018

References