IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

CT radiomics for differentiating fat poor angiomyolipoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Fatemeh Dehghani Firouzabadi
  • Nikhil Gopal
  • Amir Hasani
  • Fatemeh Homayounieh
  • Xiaobai Li
  • Elizabeth C Jones
  • Pouria Yazdian Anari
  • Evrim Turkbey
  • Ashkan A Malayeri

Abstract

Purpose: Differentiation of fat-poor angiomyolipoma (fp-AMLs) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is often not possible from just visual interpretation of conventional cross-sectional imaging, typically requiring biopsy or surgery for diagnostic confirmation. However, radiomics has the potential to characterize renal masses without the need for invasive procedures. Here, we conducted a systematic review on the accuracy of CT radiomics in distinguishing fp-AMLs from RCCs. Methods: We conducted a search using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published from January 2011–2022 that utilized CT radiomics to discriminate between fp-AMLs and RCCs. A random-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis according to the heterogeneity level. Furthermore, subgroup analyses (group 1: RCCs vs. fp-AML, and group 2: ccRCC vs. fp-AML), and quality assessment were also conducted to explore the possible effect of interstudy differences. To evaluate CT radiomics performance, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were assessed. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022311034). Results: Our literature search identified 10 studies with 1456 lesions in 1437 patients. Pooled sensitivity was 0.779 [95% CI: 0.562–0.907] and 0.817 [95% CI: 0.663–0.910] for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Pooled specificity was 0.933 [95% CI: 0.814–0.978]and 0.926 [95% CI: 0.854–0.964] for groups 1 and 2, respectively. Also, our findings showed higher sensitivity and specificity of 0.858 [95% CI: 0.742–0.927] and 0.886 [95% CI: 0.819–0.930] for detecting ccRCC from fp-AML in the unenhanced phase of CT scan as compared to the corticomedullary and nephrogenic phases of CT scan. Conclusion: This study suggested that radiomic features derived from CT has high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating RCCs vs. fp-AML, particularly in detecting ccRCCs vs. fp-AML. Also, an unenhanced CT scan showed the highest specificity and sensitivity as compared to contrast CT scan phases. Differentiating between fp-AML and RCC often is not possible without biopsy or surgery; radiomics has the potential to obviate these invasive procedures due to its high diagnostic accuracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Fatemeh Dehghani Firouzabadi & Nikhil Gopal & Amir Hasani & Fatemeh Homayounieh & Xiaobai Li & Elizabeth C Jones & Pouria Yazdian Anari & Evrim Turkbey & Ashkan A Malayeri, 2023. "CT radiomics for differentiating fat poor angiomyolipoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(7), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287299
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287299
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287299
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287299&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287299?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.