Contrast‑enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma: A meta‑analysis
Affiliations: Department of Gynecology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, P.R. China
- Published online on: October 22, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.6889
Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
This article is mentioned in:
The present study evaluated the diagnostic value of contrast‑enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in endometrial carcinoma (EC). Articles published until 31 January 2017 were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Elsevier, Springer and Google scholar, with the following inclusion criteria: i) The accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of CEUS in the diagnosis of EC was evaluated; ii) a gold standard was adopted to treat and confirm EC, including surgery, histopathology and appropriate follow‑up (as included in the meta‑analysis); iii) the data allowed for construction of a 2x2 table of positives, false‑positives, negatives and false‑negatives. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, risk ratios and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated in the present meta‑analysis of the accuracy of CEUS in diagnosing EC. The summary receiver‑operating characteristics (sROC) curve was also constructed. Among the 93 relevant articles, 7 studies were finally selected according to the inclusion criteria with a sample size of n=275. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS in the diagnosis of EC was 84% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78‑0.88], while the pooled specificity was 90% (95% CI, 0.86‑0.92). The positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of CEUS was 8.0 (95% CI, 5.9‑10.8) and the negative likelihood ratio (‑LR) was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.13‑0.25). The DOR was 44 (95% CI, 26‑77). The area under the sROC curve was 0.93 with specificity of 0.90 (0.86‑0.92) and sensitivity of 0.84 (0.78‑0.88) for the summary operating point. Moderate heterogeneity was observed for sensitivity, specificity and DOR with I2 values of 32.56, 34.68 and 41.2%, respectively. No significant publication bias was observed for the DOR of CEUS. In conclusion, the present meta‑analysis indicates that CEUS is valuable in the diagnosis of EC. Additional clinical data and studies are still required to confirm these results and to further develop the diagnostic application of CEUS in EC.