Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging

  • 제31권4호
  • /
  • Pages.159-168
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2586-7210(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2586-7296(eISSN)
한국심초음파학회 (Korean Society of Echocardiography)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Versus Histopathologic Study for Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Cardiac Tumours: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Sandra Nobrega (Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto) ;
  • Catarina Martins da Costa (Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto) ;
  • Ana Filipa Amador (Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto) ;
  • Sofia Justo (Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto) ;
  • Elisabete Martins (Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto)
  • 투고 : 2023.02.17
  • 심사 : 2023.08.06
  • 발행 : 2023.10.27
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for diagnosis of cardiac tumours is histopathological examination. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a valuable non-invasive, radiation-free tool for identifying and characterizing cardiac tumours. Our aim is to understand CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours by distinguishing benign vs. malignant tumours compared to the gold standard. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to December 2022, and the results were reviewed by 2 independent investigators. Studies reporting CMR diagnosis were included in a meta-analysis, and pooled measures were obtained. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tools from the National Institutes of Health. RESULTS: A total of 2,321 results was obtained; 10 studies were eligible, including one identified by citation search. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis, which presented a pooled sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 94%, a diagnostic odds ratio of 185, and an area under the curve of 0.98 for CMR diagnosis of benign vs. malignant tumours. Additionally, 4 studies evaluated whether CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours matched specific histopathological subtypes, with 73.6% achieving the correct diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first published systematic review on CMR diagnosis of cardiac tumours. Compared to histopathological results, the ability to discriminate benign from malignant tumours was good but not outstanding. However, significant heterogeneity may have had an impact on our findings.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bussani R, Castrichini M, Restivo L, et al. Cardiac tumors: diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Curr Cardiol Rep 2020;22:169.
  2. Tyebally S, Chen D, Bhattacharyya S, et al. Cardiac tumors: JACC CardioOncology state-of-the-art review. JACC CardioOncol 2020;2:293-311.
  3. Maleszewski JJ, Anavekar NS, Moynihan TJ, Klarich KW. Pathology, imaging, and treatment of cardiac tumours. Nat Rev Cardiol 2017;14:536-49.
  4. Aggeli C, Dimitroglou Y, Raftopoulos L, et al. Cardiac masses: the role of cardiovascular imaging in the differential diagnosis. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020;10:1088.
  5. Motwani M, Kidambi A, Herzog BA, Uddin A, Greenwood JP, Plein S. MR imaging of cardiac tumors and masses: a review of methods and clinical applications. Radiology 2013;268:26-43.
  6. Braggion-Santos MF, Koenigkam-Santos M, Teixeira SR, Volpe GJ, Trad HS, Schmidt A. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of cardiac masses. Arq Bras Cardiol 2013;101:263-72.
  7. Poterucha TJ, Kochav J, O'Connor DS, Rosner GF. Cardiac tumors: clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2019;20:66.
  8. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-96.
  9. Okeh UM, Okoro CN. Evaluating measures of indicators of diagnostic test performance: fundamental meanings and formulars. J Biomet Biostat 2012;3:132.
  10. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
  11. Dwamena B. Meta-analytical Integration of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Stata. Boston, MA: Stata Users Group, 2007.
  12. Harbord R. METANDI: Stata Module to Perform Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College Department of Economics, 2008.
  13. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies [Internet]. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2021 [cited 2022 Dec 31]; Available at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/studyquality-assessment-tools.
  14. Fussen S, De Boeck BW, Zellweger MJ, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and clinical management of suspected cardiac masses and tumours. Eur Heart J 2011;32:1551-60.
  15. Giusca S, Mereles D, Ochs A, et al. Incremental value of cardiac magnetic resonance for the evaluation of cardiac tumors in adults: experience of a high volume tertiary cardiology centre. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;33:879-88.
  16. Hoffmann U, Globits S, Schima W, et al. Usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging of cardiac and paracardiac masses. Am J Cardiol 2003;92:890-5.
  17. Kassi M, Polsani V, Schutt RC, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant cardiac tumors with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019;157:1912-1922.e2.
  18. Lemasle M, Lavie Badie Y, Cariou E, et al. Contribution and performance of multimodal imaging in the diagnosis and management of cardiac masses. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2020;36:971-81.
  19. Mousavi N, Cheezum MK, Aghayev A, et al. Assessment of cardiac masses by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: histological correlation and clinical outcomes. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e007829.
  20. Shenoy C, Grizzard JD, Shah DJ, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in suspected cardiac tumour: a multicentre outcomes study. Eur Heart J 2021;43:71-80.
  21. Tumma R, Dong W, Wang J, Litt H, Han Y. Evaluation of cardiac masses by CMR-strengths and pitfalls: a tertiary center experience. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;32:913-20.
  22. Zhu D, Yin S, Cheng W, et al. Cardiac MRI-based multi-modality imaging in clinical decision-making: preliminary assessment of a management algorithm for patients with suspected cardiac mass. Int J Cardiol 2016;203:474-81.
  23. Patel R, Lim RP, Saric M, et al. Diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography in evaluation of cardiac and paracardiac masses. Am J Cardiol 2016;117:135-40.
  24. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1129-35.