To investigate the interobserver agreement of different thyroid imaging report and data system (TI-RADS) and ultrasound (US) features.
Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science for relevant studies published between October 1972 and December 2018. Studies investigating interobserver agreement between different radiologists were included. The Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) score tools were applied to assess the quality of the studies. The data for the inter-agreements of TI-RADS categories and ultrasound features were extracted, and combined with STATA 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) was used.
Seven studies including 927 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. There was a moderate variability in the TI-RADS categories among radiologists (0.54; 95% CI: 0.49-0.58). Regarding the US features, the reliability of composition (0.61; 95% CI: 0.55-0.66) and calcification (0.71; 95% CI: 0.65-0.77) was good, the reliability of echogenicity (0.58; 95% CI: 0.51-0.64), shape (0.53; 95% CI: 0.45-0.62), margin (0.40; 95% CI: 0.32-0.48) and echogenic foci (0.43; 95% CI: 0.32-0.54) was moderate. Subgroup analyses showed that experience/training, the number of observers and the number of patients were the main factors influencing the variability.
The interobserver agreement for the TI-RADS categories was moderate. There remains potential for improvement, especially in terms of the echogenicity, shape, margin and echogenic foci, the precision of the description and the targeted training needed.

Variability in the interpretation of grey-scale ultrasound features in assessing thyroid nodules: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion.
To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data.
PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022.
English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data.
Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.
Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis.
The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (β-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (β-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (β-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15).
These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category M (LR-M) was introduced to preserve the high specificity of LI-RADS algorithm for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to systematically determine the probability of the LR-M for HCC and non-HCC malignancy, and to determine the sources of heterogeneity between reported results.
Original studies reporting the probability of LR-M for HCC and non-HCC malignancy on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The meta-analytic pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC in LR-M were calculated. Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore study heterogeneity. The meta-analytic frequency of each LR-M imaging feature was determined.
We found 10 studies reporting the diagnostic performance of LR-M (1819 lesions in 1631 patients), and six reporting the frequency of LR-M imaging features. The pooled percentages of HCC and non-HCC malignancy for LR-M were 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.8%-33.1%; I
The LR-M category most commonly included non-HCC malignancy but also included 28.2% of HCC. Substantial study heterogeneity was noted, and it was significantly associated with study type and MRI scanner field strength. In addition, the frequency of LR-M imaging features was variable.

Liver imaging reporting and data system category M: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

There has been a dramatic increase in the use of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnostic workup. With prostate volume calculated from MRI, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) now is a ready-to-use parameter for prostate cancer (PCa) risk stratification before prostate biopsy, especially among patients with negative MRI or equivocal lesions.
In this review, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PSAD for clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) among patients who received MRI before prostate biopsy.
Two investigators performed a systematic review according of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Studies (published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021) reporting the diagnostic performance (outcomes) of PSAD (intervention) for CSPCa among men who received prebiopsy prostate MRI and subsequent prostate biopsy (patients), using biopsy pathology as the gold standard (comparison), were eligible for inclusion.
A total of 1536 papers were identified in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Of these, 248 studies were reviewed in detail and 39 were qualified. The pooled sensitivity (SENS) and specificity (SPEC) for diagnosing CSPCa among patients with positive MRI were, respectively, 0.87 and 0.35 for PSAD of 0.1 ng/ml/ml, 0.74 and 0.61 for PSAD of 0.15 ng/ml/ml, and 0.51 and 0.81 for PSAD of 0.2 ng/ml/ml. The pooled SENS and SPEC for diagnosing CSPCa among patients with negative MRI were, respectively, 0.85 and 0.36 for PSAD of 0.1 ng/ml/ml, 0.60 and 0.66 for PSAD of 0.15 ng/ml/ml, and 0.33 and 0.84 for PSAD of 0.2 ng/ml/ml. The pooled SENS and SPEC among patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 or Likert 3 lesions were, respectively, 0.87 and 0.39 for PSAD of 0.1 ng/ml/ml, 0.61 and 0.69 for PSAD of 0.15 ng/ml/ml, and 0.42 and 0.82 for PSAD of 0.2 ng/ml/ml. The post-test probability for CSPCa among patients with negative MRI was 6% if PSAD was <0.15 ng/ml/ml and dropped to 4% if PSAD was <0.10 ng/ml/ml.
In this systematic review, we quantitatively evaluated the diagnosis performance of PSAD for CSPCa in combination with prostate MRI. It demonstrated a complementary performance and predictive value, especially among patients with negative MRI and PI-RADS 3 or Likert 3 lesions. Integration of PSAD into decision-making for prostate biopsy may facilitate improved risk-adjusted care.
Prostate-specific antigen density is a ready-to-use parameter in the era of increased magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use in clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) diagnosis. Findings suggest that the chance of having CSPCa was very low (4% or 6% for those with negative prebiopsy MRI or Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (Likert) score 3 lesion, respectively, if the PSAD was <0.10 ng/ml/ml), which may lower the need for biopsy in these patients.

Diagnostic Performance of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a more accessible alternative to contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) in breast imaging, but a summary comparison of published studies is lacking. Purpose To directly compare the performance of CEM and CE-MRI regarding sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value in detecting breast cancer, involving all publicly available studies in the English language. Materials and Methods Two readers extracted characteristics of studies investigating the comparative diagnostic performance of CEM and CE-MRI in detecting breast cancer. Studies published until April 2021 were eligible. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using bivariate random effects models. A Fagan nomogram was used to identify the maximum pretest probability at which posttest probabilities of a negative CEM or CE-MRI examination were in line with the 2% malignancy rate benchmark for downgrading a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 to a BI-RADS category 3 result. 

Contrast-enhanced Mammography versus Contrast-enhanced Breast MRI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities by breast density and breast cancer risk has not been widely studied, and the optimal choice of modality for women with dense breasts remains unclear in clinical practice and guidelines. This systematic review aimed to assess breast cancer screening performance of supplemental imaging modalities for women with dense breasts, by breast cancer risk. Systematic reviews (SRs) in 2000 to 2021, and primary studies in 2019 to 2021, on outcomes of supplemental screening modalities (digital breast tomography [DBT], MRI (full/abbreviated protocol), contrast enhanced mammography (CEM), ultrasound (hand-held [HHUS]/automated [ABUS]) in women with dense breasts (BI-RADS C&D) were identified. None of the SRs analyzed outcomes by cancer risk. Meta-analysis of the primary studies was not feasible due to lack of studies (MRI, CEM, DBT) or methodological heterogeneity (ultrasound); therefore, findings were summarized narratively. For average risk, a single MRI trial reported a superior screening performance (higher cancer detection rate [CDR] and lower interval cancer rate [ICR]) compared to HHUS, ABUS and DBT. For intermediate risk, ultrasound was the only modality assessed, but accuracy estimates ranged widely. For mixed risk, a single CEM study reported the highest CDR, but included a high proportion of women with intermediate risk. This systematic review does not allow a complete comparison of supplemental screening modalities for dense breast populations by breast cancer risk. However, the data suggest that MRI and CEM might generally offer superior screening performance versus other modalities. Further studies of screening modalities are urgently required.

Performance of Supplemental Imaging Modalities for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: Findings From an Umbrella Review and Primary Studies Analysis.

Papers