Diagnostic accuracy of node-RADS for the detection of lymph node invasion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1007/s00330-025-11387-6
Feng Lu, Yanjun Zhao, Zhongjuan Wang, Ninghan Feng
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of node-RADS for the detection of lymph node invasion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Feng Lu, Yanjun Zhao, Zhongjuan Wang, Ninghan Feng","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-11387-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic performance of the node reporting and data system (Node-RADS) for detecting lymph node (LN) invasion.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of online scientific publication databases from inception up to July 31, 2024. We used the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) to assess the study quality, and heterogeneity was determined by the Q-test and measured with I<sup>2</sup> statistics. We employed the hierarchic summary ROC (HSROC) model to estimate the summary sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the imaging modality and cutoff values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 studies involving 1341 participants met the inclusion criteria. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of HSROC were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.88), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90), and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CT were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.83) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91), whereas for MRI were 0.84 (95% CI: 0.59-0.95) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81-0.93), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Node-RADS demonstrates the promising potential for the prediction of LN invasion, with high specificity but moderate sensitivity, particularly with optimal cutoff value ≥ 3. Indirect comparisons showed no significant difference between CT and MRI regarding overall diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Since the Node-RADS has been proposed, a number of studies have assessed its diagnostic performance for evaluating LN invasion. Findings Node-RADS demonstrated high specificity but moderate sensitivity, and cutoff ≥ 3 is the optimal threshold; indirect comparison suggested no significant difference between CT and MRI. Clinical relevance This study synthesized currently available evidence on studies of utilizing Node-RADS for assessing LNI in patients with various cancers, providing valuable insights for radiologists for utilizing this new risk scoring system in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11387-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the diagnostic performance of the node reporting and data system (Node-RADS) for detecting lymph node (LN) invasion.

Method: We performed a systematic literature search of online scientific publication databases from inception up to July 31, 2024. We used the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 (QUADAS-2) to assess the study quality, and heterogeneity was determined by the Q-test and measured with I2 statistics. We employed the hierarchic summary ROC (HSROC) model to estimate the summary sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the imaging modality and cutoff values.

Results: A total of 13 studies involving 1341 participants met the inclusion criteria. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of HSROC were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.88), 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90), and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity and specificity for CT were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.83) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91), whereas for MRI were 0.84 (95% CI: 0.59-0.95) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81-0.93), respectively.

Conclusion: Node-RADS demonstrates the promising potential for the prediction of LN invasion, with high specificity but moderate sensitivity, particularly with optimal cutoff value ≥ 3. Indirect comparisons showed no significant difference between CT and MRI regarding overall diagnostic accuracy.

Key points: Question Since the Node-RADS has been proposed, a number of studies have assessed its diagnostic performance for evaluating LN invasion. Findings Node-RADS demonstrated high specificity but moderate sensitivity, and cutoff ≥ 3 is the optimal threshold; indirect comparison suggested no significant difference between CT and MRI. Clinical relevance This study synthesized currently available evidence on studies of utilizing Node-RADS for assessing LNI in patients with various cancers, providing valuable insights for radiologists for utilizing this new risk scoring system in clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Substituting with alternative iodinated contrast medium to prevent recurrent adverse drug reactions associated with its use: a meta-analysis. Refining imaging criteria for mucinous cystic neoplasm of the liver: simplified diagnostic approach. Watchful waiting for ductal carcinoma in situ: are we ready to step back? Why quality matters in prostate-MR images: implementing PI-QUAL v2 for improved diagnosis and research. Deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis in breast MRI: systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1