Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid calculi: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Tomography, X-ray computed
Uric acid
Urolithiasis
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2020
May 2020
Historique:
received:
22
07
2019
accepted:
30
10
2019
revised:
22
10
2019
pubmed:
26
1
2020
medline:
3
11
2020
entrez:
26
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Uric acid stone diagnosis is presently done primarily with in vitro analysis of stones. In vivo diagnosis with dual-energy CT (DECT) would allow earlier initiation of therapy with urine alkalinization and avoid surgical intervention. To evaluate if DECT, using stone analysis as reference standard, is sufficiently accurate to replace stone analysis for diagnosis of uric acid stones. Original studies in patients with urolithiasis examined with DECT with stone analysis as the reference standard were eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE (1946-2018), Embase (1947-2018), CENTRAL (August 2018), and multiple urology and radiology conferences were searched. QUADAS-2 was used to assess risk of bias and applicability. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model. A total of 21 studies (1105 patients, 1442 stones) were included. Fourteen studies containing 662 patients (944 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid dominant target condition (majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). Thirteen studies (674 patients, 760 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid-containing target condition (< majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). Meta-regression showed no significant variability in test accuracy. Two studies had one or more domains at high risk of bias and there were no concerns regarding applicability. DECT is an accurate replacement test for diagnosis of uric acid calculi in vivo, such that stone analysis could be replaced in the diagnostic pathway. This would enable earlier initiation of urine alkalinization. • DECT for uric acid dominant stones has sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99); uric acid-containing stones had mean sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). • Meta-regression did not identify any variables (study design, reference standard, dual-energy CT type, dose, risk of bias) that influenced test accuracy. • Only 2 of the 21 included studies had 1 or more domain considered to be at high risk of bias with the majority of domains considered at low risk of bias; there were no concerns regarding applicability in any of the included studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Uric acid stone diagnosis is presently done primarily with in vitro analysis of stones. In vivo diagnosis with dual-energy CT (DECT) would allow earlier initiation of therapy with urine alkalinization and avoid surgical intervention.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate if DECT, using stone analysis as reference standard, is sufficiently accurate to replace stone analysis for diagnosis of uric acid stones.
METHODS
METHODS
Original studies in patients with urolithiasis examined with DECT with stone analysis as the reference standard were eligible for inclusion. MEDLINE (1946-2018), Embase (1947-2018), CENTRAL (August 2018), and multiple urology and radiology conferences were searched. QUADAS-2 was used to assess risk of bias and applicability. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies (1105 patients, 1442 stones) were included. Fourteen studies containing 662 patients (944 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid dominant target condition (majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). Thirteen studies (674 patients, 760 stones) were analyzed in the uric acid-containing target condition (< majority of stone composition uric acid): mean sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). Meta-regression showed no significant variability in test accuracy. Two studies had one or more domains at high risk of bias and there were no concerns regarding applicability.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DECT is an accurate replacement test for diagnosis of uric acid calculi in vivo, such that stone analysis could be replaced in the diagnostic pathway. This would enable earlier initiation of urine alkalinization.
KEY POINTS
CONCLUSIONS
• DECT for uric acid dominant stones has sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.93) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99); uric acid-containing stones had mean sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.73-0.89) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98). • Meta-regression did not identify any variables (study design, reference standard, dual-energy CT type, dose, risk of bias) that influenced test accuracy. • Only 2 of the 21 included studies had 1 or more domain considered to be at high risk of bias with the majority of domains considered at low risk of bias; there were no concerns regarding applicability in any of the included studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31980881
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06559-0
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06559-0
doi:
Substances chimiques
Uric Acid
268B43MJ25
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2791-2801Références
Invest Radiol. 2008 Feb;43(2):112-9
pubmed: 18197063
Radiographics. 2018 Mar-Apr;38(2):586-602
pubmed: 29528816
Can Urol Assoc J. 2016 Nov-Dec;10(11-12):E347-E358
pubmed: 28096919
JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396
pubmed: 29362800
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):W100-W105
pubmed: 30714831
Eur Radiol. 2017 Oct;27(10):4324-4335
pubmed: 28289937
Radiology. 2016 Oct;281(1):78-85
pubmed: 27082781
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Clin Chem. 2017 Aug;63(8):1353-1362
pubmed: 28606911
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016 Nov/Dec;40(6):846-850
pubmed: 27768619
Rev Urol. 2007 Winter;9(1):17-27
pubmed: 17396168
Urolithiasis. 2017 Jun;45(3):255-261
pubmed: 27393276
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019 Jun;49(7):e51-e64
pubmed: 30102435
Eur J Radiol. 2016 Oct;85(10):1843-1848
pubmed: 27666626
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5 Suppl):S64-70
pubmed: 23097169
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2017 Aug;27(3):429-443
pubmed: 28711203
Radiology. 2015 Sep;276(3):637-53
pubmed: 26302388
Radiology. 2010 Nov;257(2):402-9
pubmed: 20807847
Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):160-5
pubmed: 22498635
N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 18;371(12):1100-10
pubmed: 25229916
Kidney Int. 2005 Oct;68(4):1808-14
pubmed: 16164658
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 May 26;5:19
pubmed: 15918898
Eur J Radiol. 2017 Aug;93:59-64
pubmed: 28668432
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5 Suppl):S16-25
pubmed: 23097163
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jun;208(6):1185-1192
pubmed: 28301210
J Urol. 2013 Apr;189(4):1334-9
pubmed: 23022002
Urology. 2001 Aug;58(2):170-3
pubmed: 11489691
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):483-4
pubmed: 26304503
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017 Jan;41(1):8-14
pubmed: 27824670