Primary hyperparathyroidism with surgical indication and negative or equivocal scintigraphy: safety and reliability of PTH washout. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective Despite the improvements in ultrasound (US) and scintigraphy, 10–20% of patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) still have discordant findings. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and the diagnostic performance of US-guided PTH washout (FNA-PTH) in patients with PHPT, a suspected parathyroid lesion on US but negative or equivocal scintigraphy. Methods The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019124249). PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL and Web of Science were searched until February 2019. Original articles reporting complications and diagnostic performance of FNA-PTH in biochemically and histopathologically diagnosed PHPT were selected. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed through QUADAS-2. Summary operating points were estimated using a random-effects model. Results Out of 2573 retrieved papers, nine cohort studies were included in the review. No major procedure-related complications were found. Pooled sensitivity was 95% (95% CI: 91–98; I 2: = 14%) and positive predictive value was 97% (95% CI: 93–100; I 2: = 39%). There were not enough data for specificity and negative predictive value to perform a meta-analysis. However, pooling results of all lesions, they were estimated to be 83 and 73%, respectively. Conclusions In patients with biochemically proven PHPT and discordant imaging, FNA-PTH was a safe and accurate procedure. In this specific setting of patients, FNA-PTH could be used as a rule-in test for minimally invasive parathyroidectomy.

Download Full-text

Comparison of diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement between PI-RADS v2.1 and PI-RADS v2: systematic review and meta-analysis

British Journal of Radiology ◽

10.1259/bjr.20210509 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 20210509

Author(s):

Chau Hung Lee ◽

Balamurugan Vellayappan ◽

Cher Heng Tan

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Diagnostic Performance ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

B Value ◽

High B Value ◽

Lower Specificity ◽

Clinically Significant ◽

Sensitivity Specificity

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing diagnostic performance and inter reader agreement between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Methods: A systematic review was performed, searching the major biomedical databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus), using the keywords “PIRADS 2.1” or “PI RADS 2.1” or “PI-RADS 2.1”. Studies reporting on head-to-head diagnostic comparison between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Summary receiver operator characteristic graphs were plotted. Analysis was performed for whole gland, and pre-planned subgroup analysis was performed by tumour location (whole gland vs transition zone (TZ)), high b-value DWI (b-value ≥1400 s/mm2), and reader experience (<5 years vs ≥5 years with prostate MRI interpretation). Inter-reader agreement and pooled rates of csPCa for PI-RADS 1–3 lesions were compared between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool v. 2 (QUADAS-2). Results: Eight studies (1836 patients, 1921 lesions) were included. Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for whole gland (0.62 vs 0.66, p = 0.02). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.17, 0.31, 0.41). Pooled specificity for PI-RADS v. 2.1 was significantly lower than PI-RADS v. 2 for TZ only (0.67 vs 0.72, p = 0.01). Pooled sensitivities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.06, 0.36, 0.17). Amongst studies utilising diffusion-weighted imaging with highest b-value of ≥1400 s/mm2, pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs were not significantly different (p = 0.52, 0.4, 0.5, 0.47). There were no significant differences in pooled sensitivities, specificities, PPVs and NPVs between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and PI-RADS v. 2 for less-experienced readers (p = 0.65, 0.37, 0.65, 0.81) and for more experienced readers (p = 0.57, 0.90, 0.91, 0.65). For PI-RADS v. 2.1 alone, there were no significant differences in pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV between less and more experienced readers (p = 0.38, 0.70, 1, 0.48). Inter-reader agreement was moderate to substantial for both PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2. There were no significant differences between pooled csPCa rates between PI-RADS v. 2.1 and v. 2 for PI-RADS 1–2 lesions (6.6% vs 7.3%, p = 0.53), or PI-RADS 3 lesions (24.1% vs 26.8%, p = 0.28). Conclusions: Diagnostic performance and inter-reader agreement for PI-RADS v. 2.1 is comparable to PI-RADS v. 2, however the significantly lower specificity of PI-RADS v. 2.1 may result in increased number of unnecessary biopsies. Advances in knowledge: 1. Compared to PI-RADS v. 2, PI-RADS v. 2.1 has a non-significantly higher sensitivity but a significantly lower specificity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. 2. PI-RADS v. 2.1 could potentially result in considerable increase in number of negative targeted biopsy rates for PI-RADS 3 lesions, which could have been potentially avoided.

Download Full-text

The Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Differentiating Testicular Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Applied Sciences ◽

10.3390/app11198990 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (19) ◽

pp. 8990

Author(s):

Antonio Tufano ◽

Rocco Simone Flammia ◽

Luca Antonelli ◽

Rocco Minelli ◽

Giorgio Franco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Diagnostic Performance ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽

Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic ◽

Diagnostic Modality ◽

Contrast Enhanced ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Sensitivity Specificity

Ultrasound (US) still represents the mainstay of scrotal imaging. However, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a relatively novel, but increasingly utilized diagnostic modality. In consequence, we performed a systematic review (SR) and pooled meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic performance of CEUS in the evaluation of testicular masses (TM). A SR up to June 2021 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was evaluated basing on two different endpoints: neoplastic vs. non-neoplastic and malignant vs. benign TM. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) from eligible studies were pooled and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were constructed for each endpoint. Overall, six qualified studies were deemed suitable for this meta-analysis. Diagnostic performance of CEUS showed an accuracy of 0.96 in detecting neoplastic masses (sensitivity of 0.89, PPV of 0.85, specificity of 0.62, and NPV of 0.69) and an accuracy of 0.96 in detecting malignant masses (sensitivity of 0.86, PPV of 0.73, specificity of 0.87, and NPV of 0.91). Taken together, CEUS may represent a promising minimally invasive diagnostic tool for characterization of TM, since it allows clinicians to identify neoplastic lesions and exclude malignant tumor.

Download Full-text

Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Preoperative Local Staging of Penile Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Applied Sciences ◽

10.3390/app11157090 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (15) ◽

pp. 7090

Author(s):

Rocco Simone Flammia ◽

Antonio Tufano ◽

Luca Antonelli ◽

Arianna Bernardotto ◽

Alberto A. Castro Castro Bigalli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Penile Cancer ◽

Diagnostic Performance ◽

Tunica Albuginea ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Local Staging

Invasion of the tunica albuginea (TA) and/or urethra are key factors in determining the feasibility of organ-preserving surgery in penile cancer (PC). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appeared to be a promising technique for preoperative local staging. We performed a systematic review (SR) and pooled meta-analysis to investigate the diagnostic performance of MRI in preoperative local staging of primary PC. An SR up to May 2021 was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The diagnostic performance of MRI was evaluated according to TA invasion, urethra invasion, and pT-stage ≥ 2. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) from eligible studies were pooled and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were constructed. Overall, seven qualified studies were deemed suitable. Diagnostic performance of MRI showed an accuracy of 0.89 for TA invasion (sensitivity 0.78, PPV 0.79, specificity 0.91, and NPV 0.90); an accuracy of 0.88 for urethra invasion (sensitivity 0.65, PPV 0.46, specificity 0.86, and NPV 0.93); an accuracy of 0.90 for pT ≥ 2 (sensitivity 0.86, PPV 0.84, specificity 0.70, and NPV 0.73).Currently available evidence indicates that MRI might be a one-stop shop for local staging of primary PC and play a central role with regard to conservative surgical management.

Download Full-text