Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 6/2014

01-06-2014 | Urogenital

Diagnostic accuracy of segmental enhancement inversion for diagnosis of renal oncocytoma at biphasic contrast enhanced CT: systematic review

Authors: Nicola Schieda, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Lilly Cao

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To use systematic review to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of segmental enhancement inversion (SEI) at contrast-enhanced biphasic multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma.

Methods

Several electronic databases were searched through October 2013. Two reviewers independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria and extracted data. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. The primary 2 × 2 data were investigated with forest plot and ROC plot of sensitivity and specificity.

Results

Four studies met the inclusion criteria (307 patients). Considerable heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analysis. Two studies from the same group of investigators demonstrated reasonable diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 59-80 % and specificity 87-99 %), while two others did not (sensitivity 0-6 %, specificity 93-100 %). Possible reasons for this include timing of biphasic MDCT and methods of interpretation but not size of lesion.

Conclusions

SEI is a specific imaging finding of renal oncocytoma with highly variable sensitivity. This substantial heterogeneity across studies and between institutions suggests that further validation of this imaging finding is necessary prior to application in clinical practice.

Key Points

SEI on CT in small renal masses is specific for oncocytoma.
Sensitivity of SEI varies substantially between studies and across institutions.
Variability could relate to CT timing or methods of interpretation.
High accuracy of SEI has only been reported by one group.
Validation of SEI is needed prior to clinical implementation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC et al (2006) Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4cm or less in diameter. J Urol 176:896–899PubMedCrossRef Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC et al (2006) Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4cm or less in diameter. J Urol 176:896–899PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Violette P, Abourbih S, Szymanski KM et al (2012) Solitary solid renal mass: can we predict malignancy? BJU Int 110(11 Pt B):E548–E552PubMedCrossRef Violette P, Abourbih S, Szymanski KM et al (2012) Solitary solid renal mass: can we predict malignancy? BJU Int 110(11 Pt B):E548–E552PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Perez-Ordonez B, Hamed G, Campbell S et al (1997) Renal oncocytoma: a clinicopathologic study of 70 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 21:871–883PubMedCrossRef Perez-Ordonez B, Hamed G, Campbell S et al (1997) Renal oncocytoma: a clinicopathologic study of 70 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 21:871–883PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Lieber MM (1993) Renal oncocytoma. Urol Clin N Am 20:355–359 Lieber MM (1993) Renal oncocytoma. Urol Clin N Am 20:355–359
5.
go back to reference Quinn MJ, Hartman DS, Friedman AC et al (1984) Renal oncocytoma: new observations. Radiology 153:49–53PubMed Quinn MJ, Hartman DS, Friedman AC et al (1984) Renal oncocytoma: new observations. Radiology 153:49–53PubMed
6.
go back to reference Jasinski RW, Amendola MA, Glazer GM, Bree RL, Gikas PW (1985) Computed tomography of renal oncocytomas. Comput Radiol 9:307–314PubMedCrossRef Jasinski RW, Amendola MA, Glazer GM, Bree RL, Gikas PW (1985) Computed tomography of renal oncocytomas. Comput Radiol 9:307–314PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Davidson AJ, Hayes WS, Hartman DS, McCarthy WF, Davis CJ Jr (1993) Renal oncocytoma and carcinoma: failure of differentiation with CT. Radiology 186:693–696PubMed Davidson AJ, Hayes WS, Hartman DS, McCarthy WF, Davis CJ Jr (1993) Renal oncocytoma and carcinoma: failure of differentiation with CT. Radiology 186:693–696PubMed
8.
go back to reference Kim JI, Cho JY, Moon KC, Lee HJ, Kim SH (2009) Segmental enhancement inversion at biphasic multidetector CT: characteristic finding of small renal oncocytoma. Radiology 252:441–448PubMedCrossRef Kim JI, Cho JY, Moon KC, Lee HJ, Kim SH (2009) Segmental enhancement inversion at biphasic multidetector CT: characteristic finding of small renal oncocytoma. Radiology 252:441–448PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Millet I, Doyon FC, Hoa D et al (2011) Characterization of small solid renal lesions: can benign and malignant tumors be differentiated with CT? AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:887–896PubMedCrossRef Millet I, Doyon FC, Hoa D et al (2011) Characterization of small solid renal lesions: can benign and malignant tumors be differentiated with CT? AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:887–896PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference McGahan JP, Lamba R, Fisher J et al (2011) Is segmental enhancement inversion on enhanced biphasic MDCT a reliable sign for the noninvasive diagnosis of renal oncocytomas? AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W674–W679PubMedCrossRef McGahan JP, Lamba R, Fisher J et al (2011) Is segmental enhancement inversion on enhanced biphasic MDCT a reliable sign for the noninvasive diagnosis of renal oncocytomas? AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W674–W679PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference O'Malley ME, Tran P, Hanbidge A, Rogalla P (2012) Small renal oncocytomas: is segmental enhancement inversion a characteristic finding at biphasic MDCT? AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1312–1315PubMedCrossRef O'Malley ME, Tran P, Hanbidge A, Rogalla P (2012) Small renal oncocytomas: is segmental enhancement inversion a characteristic finding at biphasic MDCT? AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1312–1315PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(264–269):W64 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(264–269):W64
13.
go back to reference Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Staunton M (2007) Evidence-based radiology: steps 1 and 2—asking answerable questions and searching for evidence. Radiology 242:23–31PubMedCrossRef Staunton M (2007) Evidence-based radiology: steps 1 and 2—asking answerable questions and searching for evidence. Radiology 242:23–31PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536PubMedCrossRef Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Macaskill P GC, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y (2010) Chapter 10: Analysing and Presenting Results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2010. Available from: http://srdta.cochrane.org/ Macaskill P GC, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y (2010) Chapter 10: Analysing and Presenting Results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2010. Available from: http://​srdta.​cochrane.​org/​
17.
go back to reference Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SH, Kim SY (2013) Comparison of segmental enhancement inversion on biphasic MDCT between small renal oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:598–604PubMedCrossRef Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SH, Kim SY (2013) Comparison of segmental enhancement inversion on biphasic MDCT between small renal oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:598–604PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SH et al (2013) Segmental enhancement inversion of small renal oncocytoma: differences in prevalence according to tumor size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1054–1059PubMedCrossRef Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SH et al (2013) Segmental enhancement inversion of small renal oncocytoma: differences in prevalence according to tumor size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1054–1059PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Fitzgerald EF, Niver BE, Melamed J, Babb JS (2010) MRI features of renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W421–W427PubMedCrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Fitzgerald EF, Niver BE, Melamed J, Babb JS (2010) MRI features of renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W421–W427PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference He W LJ-Y (2011) Characteristic finding of renal oncocytoma and clear-cell renal cell carcinoma with multiphase CT. Chin J Radiol 45:1203–1206 He W LJ-Y (2011) Characteristic finding of renal oncocytoma and clear-cell renal cell carcinoma with multiphase CT. Chin J Radiol 45:1203–1206
Metadata
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of segmental enhancement inversion for diagnosis of renal oncocytoma at biphasic contrast enhanced CT: systematic review
Authors
Nicola Schieda
Matthew D. F. McInnes
Lilly Cao
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3147-4

Other articles of this Issue 6/2014

European Radiology 6/2014 Go to the issue