Evidence Hub

Diffusion-weighted imaging of focal renal lesions: a meta-analysis

Lassel EA, Rao R, Schwenke C, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ

European radiology, 2014

764 participants · 126 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Contrast-enhanced MRI can only distinguish to a limited extent between malignant and benign focal renal lesions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to review renal diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to compare apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for different renal lesions that can be applied in clinical practice.

METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to identify relevant articles published 2004-2011 on renal DWI of focal renal lesions. ADC values were extracted by lesion type to determine whether benign or malignant. The data table was finalised in a consensus read. ADC values were evaluated statistically using meta-regression based on a linear mixed model. Two-sided P value <5 % indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS: The meta-analysis is based on 17 studies with 764 patients. Renal cell carcinomas have significant lower ADC values than benign tissue (1.61 ± 0.08 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s vs 2.10 ± 0.09 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P < 0.0001). Uroepithelial malignancies can be differentiated by lowest ADC values (1.30 ± 0.11 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s). There is a significant difference between ADC values of renal cell carcinomas and oncocytomas (1.61 ± 0.08 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s vs 2.00 ± 0.08 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of ADC values can help to determine between benign and malignant lesions in general but also seems able to differentiate oncocytomas from malignant tumours, hence potentially reducing the number of unnecessarily performed nephrectomies.

KEY…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 764 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free