Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Jul;30(7):4023-4038.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06740-w. Epub 2020 Mar 6.

Diagnostic test accuracy of ADC values for identification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Diagnostic test accuracy of ADC values for identification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis

Mickael Tordjman et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Jul.

Abstract

Objectives: To perform a systematic review on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of renal tumor subtypes and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of ADC for differentiation of localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) from other renal tumor types.

Methods: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published until May 1, 2019, that reported ADC values of renal tumors. Methodological quality was evaluated. For the meta-analysis on diagnostic test accuracy of ADC for differentiation of ccRCC from other renal lesions, we applied a bivariate random-effects model and compared two subgroups of ADC measurement with vs. without cystic and necrotic areas.

Results: We included 48 studies (2588 lesions) in the systematic review and 13 studies (1126 lesions) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in ADC of renal parenchyma using b values of 0-800 vs. 0-1000 (p = 0.08). ADC measured on selected portions (sADC) excluding cystic and necrotic areas differed significantly from whole-lesion ADC (wADC) (p = 0.002). Compared to ccRCC, minimal-fat angiomyolipoma, papillary RCC, and chromophobe RCC showed significantly lower sADC while oncocytoma exhibited higher sADC. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity to differentiate ccRCC from other tumors were 80% (95% CI, 0.76-0.88) and 78% (95% CI, 0.64-0.89), respectively, for sADC and 77% (95% CI, 0.59-0.90) and 77% (95% CI, 0.69-0.86) for wADC. sADC offered a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve than wADC (0.852 vs. 0.785, p = 0.02).

Conclusions: ADC values of kidney tumors that exclude cystic or necrotic areas more accurately differentiate ccRCC from other renal tumor types than whole-lesion ADC values.

Key points: • Selective ADC of renal tumors, excluding cystic and necrotic areas, provides better discriminatory ability than whole-lesion ADC to differentiate clear cell RCC from other renal lesions, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.852 vs. 0.785, respectively (p = 0.02). • Selective ADC of renal masses provides moderate sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 78%, respectively, for differentiation of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from papillary RCC, chromophobe RCC, oncocytoma, and minimal-fat angiomyolipoma. • Selective ADC excluding cystic and necrotic areas are preferable to whole-lesion ADC as an additional tool to multiphasic MRI to differentiate clear cell RCC from other renal lesions whether the highest b value is 800 or 1000.

Keywords: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma; Diffusion weighted imaging; Kidney neoplasms; Renal cell carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Flow diagram of studies included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Risk of bias and applicability concerns summary: authors’ judgements about each domain for each included study
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Forest plot of the studies included in the meta-analysis
Figure 4:
Figure 4:
sROC curves of the analysis comparing ccRCC with other renal lesions for the 13 studies included.
Figure 5:
Figure 5:
Funnel plot of the meta-analysis on differentiation of ccRCC from pRCC, chRCC, mfAML and oncocytoma

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Wang H, Cheng L, Zhang X, et al. (2010) Renal cell carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for subtype differentiation at 3.0 T. Radiology 257:135–143. 10.1148/radiol.10092396 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paudyal B, Paudyal P, Tsushima Y, et al. (2010) The role of the ADC value in the characterisation of renal carcinoma by diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol 83:336–343. 10.1259/bjr/74949757 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li H, Liu L, Ding L, et al. (2018) Quantitative Assessment of Bladder Cancer Reflects Grade and Recurrence: Comparing of Three Methods of Positioning Region of Interest for ADC Measurements at Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging. Acad Radiol. 10.1016/j.acra.2018.10.016 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paschall AK, Mirmomen SM, Symons R, et al. (2018) Differentiating papillary type I RCC from clear cell RCC and oncocytoma: application of whole-lesion volumetric ADC measurement. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:2424–2430. 10.1007/s00261-017-1453-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choi YA, Kim CK, Park SY, et al. (2014) Subtype differentiation of renal cell carcinoma using diffusion-weighted and blood oxygenation level-dependent MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W78–84. 10.2214/AJR.13.11551 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms