RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Understanding the difference in Diagnostic accuracy of MRI between ccRCC and pRCC :- A meta Analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.06.18.23291572
DO 10.1101/2023.06.18.23291572
A1 Desai, Dev
A1 Majdouli, Sanae
A1 Raval, Dwija
A1 Andharia, Dev
A1 Shah, Abhijay B.
A1 Shah, Hetvi
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/19/2023.06.18.23291572.abstract
AB Background Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) comprises cancer originating from the renal epithelium and takes up for >90% of cancers in the kidney. The disease consists of >10 histological and molecular subtypes, of which clear cell RCC (ccRCC) is the most common and is responsible for most cancer-related deaths. In an attempt to ensure an early diagnosis to plan the further course of surgical intervention, pre-operative diagnosis plays an important role. MRI plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of RCC and planning for surgery for presumed RCC, especially for identifying enhanced soft tissue within renal lesions. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to ascertain the accuracy of MRI in diagnosing papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) compared to clear cell carcinoma to reach a definitive diagnosis and thus, help in surgical intervention.Methods Medical literature was comprehensively searched and reviewed without restrictions to particular study designs, or publication dates using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for all relevant literature. The extraction of necessary data proceeded after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. In this Meta-Analysis, a total of 5 papers involving 755 lesions were considered for Clear cell carcinoma. A total number of 13 papers regarding 1009 lesions of papillary renal cell carcinoma were considered. wherein two writers independently assessed the caliber of each study as well as the use of the Cochrane tool for bias risk apprehension. The statistical software packages RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20), and Excel in Stata 14 were used to perform the statistical analyses.Results We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in diagnosing pRCC and ccRCC in the different papers, For the MRI in ccRCC, The sensitivity is 0.81 with a CI of 95% in a range of 0.77 to 0.86, the mean being 0.049. The Specificity of the MRI is 0.77 with a CI of 95% in a range of 0.68 to 0.86, the mean being 0.091. For the pRCC, The Sensitivity of the MRI in pRCC is 0.66 with a CI of 95% in a range of 0.52 to 0.80; the mean being (0.14). The Specificity of the MRI in pRCC is 0.87 with a CI of 95% in a range of 0.80 to 0.94, the mean being 0.072.Conclusion Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers a thorough evaluation of renal masses that takes in to account both, functional factors and several types of tissue contrast. In light of the above mentioned clinical requirements, these characteristics of MRI have sped up the process of early detection, diagnosis, staging, and evaluation of the aggressiveness and therapeutic r esponse of RCCCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This submission is a meta-analysis that has all the data used in the study recorded and referenced in the reference section.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript