Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 3/2021

01-03-2021 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Review

Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Yashar Moharamzad, Amir H. Davarpanah, Ali Yaghobi Joybari, Fatemeh Shahbazi, Leila Esmaeilian Toosi, Melika Kooshkiforooshani, Ali Ansari, Morteza Sanei Taheri

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 3/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

To determine the diagnostic performance of mean ADC values in the characterization of endometrial carcinoma (EC) from benign lesions by systematic review of the literature and performing meta-analysis. A systematic search of major electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find studies that used ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the search results and then by reading the full texts selected the pertinent studies for final analyses. A bivariate random-effects model with pooled sensitivity and specificity values with 95% CI (confidence interval) was used. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were created. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using I squared (I2) index. Eleven studies including 269 ECs and 208 benign lesions were analyzed. Pooled average (95% CI) ADC in EC and benign lesions groups were, respectively, 0.82 (0.77–0.87) × 10–3 mm2/s and 1.41 (1.29–1.52) × 10–3 mm2/s. The combined (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of mean ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions were 93% (87–96%; I2 = 41.19%) and 94% (88–97%; I2 = 46.91%), respectively. The AUC (95% CI) of the SROC curve was 98% (96–99%). ADC values had good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating EC from benign lesions. In order to recommend ADC measurement for detecting endometrial lesions in routine clinical practice, more primary studies, especially trials and comparative studies including hysteroscopically-guided biopsy method, with larger sample sizes are still required.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
18.
go back to reference Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D (ed) Systematic Reviews in Healt Care: Meta analysis in Context, 2nd edn. BMJ Puublishing Group, Londonn, pp 248-282.CrossRef Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman D (ed) Systematic Reviews in Healt Care: Meta analysis in Context, 2nd edn. BMJ Puublishing Group, Londonn, pp 248-282.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Chen Y, Cheng J, Bai J, Zhang Y, Xue K, Zhang C (2017) DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differential diagnosis of stage-I a endometrial carcinomas and endometrial polyps. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 33:70-74 Chen Y, Cheng J, Bai J, Zhang Y, Xue K, Zhang C (2017) DWI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differential diagnosis of stage-I a endometrial carcinomas and endometrial polyps. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 33:70-74
31.
39.
41.
go back to reference Cao K, Zhang XP, Tang J, Li J (2008) Clinical application of diffusion-weighted MRI in uterine tumors-evaluation of signal intensity and ADC values. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 8: 1231-1235. Cao K, Zhang XP, Tang J, Li J (2008) Clinical application of diffusion-weighted MRI in uterine tumors-evaluation of signal intensity and ADC values. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 8: 1231-1235.
47.
go back to reference Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC (2019) Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (ed) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (UK), pp 349-374.CrossRef Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC (2019) Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (ed) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (UK), pp 349-374.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference Lin G, Yang LY, Huang YT et al (2016) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI in the differentiation between uterine leiomyosarcoma/smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential and benign leiomyoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:333-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24998CrossRefPubMed Lin G, Yang LY, Huang YT et al (2016) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI in the differentiation between uterine leiomyosarcoma/smooth muscle tumor with uncertain malignant potential and benign leiomyoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:333-342. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jmri.​24998CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Yashar Moharamzad
Amir H. Davarpanah
Ali Yaghobi Joybari
Fatemeh Shahbazi
Leila Esmaeilian Toosi
Melika Kooshkiforooshani
Ali Ansari
Morteza Sanei Taheri
Publication date
01-03-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02734-w

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Abdominal Radiology 3/2021 Go to the issue