Abstract
Background The study compared the diagnostic accuracy of Dual Energy Virtual Non-Contrast CT (DEvNCT) to Non-Contrast CT (NCT) for adrenal adenomas. Adrenal nodules on CT scans require precise characterization to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions. CT imaging uses features like low attenuation and contrast enhancement to identify adenomas. However, distinguishing adenomas from non-adenoma lesions can be challenging due to overlapping attenuation levels.
DEvNCT, a post-processing technique enabled by dual-energy CT, optimizes adrenal lesion evaluation. The study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of DEvNCT and NCT for adrenal adenomas.
Methodology A systematic review and meta-analysis searched relevant literature in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases. The analysis included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 407 patients: three RCTs for NCT vs. Biopsy and six RCTs for DEvNCT vs. NCT. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools.
Result Results revealed DEvNCT had 72% sensitivity, 94% specificity, and 0.878 positive predictive value for adrenal adenoma diagnosis. NCT had 80% sensitivity, 68.1% specificity, and 0.831 positive predictive values. The difference in specificity between DEvNCT and NCT was significant, indicating DEvNCT’s superior ability to identify adenomas accurately.
Conclusion The study concluded that DEvNCT exhibited comparable sensitivity but higher specificity than NCT in diagnosing adrenal adenomas. DEvNCT could potentially reduce follow-up imaging, lower costs, and minimize radiation exposure. However, biopsy remains the gold standard for confirming adrenal adenoma diagnosis.
Overall, DEvNCT shows promise for improving diagnostic accuracy compared to NCT in diagnosing adrenal adenomas. Further research and clinical validation are needed to confirm these findings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study being a meta-analysis has put all the papers in references which were used for their data and cited appropriately.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Email Address: devhdesai01{at}gmail.com
Email Address: duisenbayevarman{at}gmail.com
Email Address: drpanktimaniyar{at}gmail.com
Email Address: marilenmalafi{at}gmail.com
Email Address: devu.andharia98{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
