
==== Front
BMC Urol
BMC Urol
BMC Urology
1471-2490
BioMed Central London

39218886
1574
10.1186/s12894-024-01574-w
Research
Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced CT in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Shen Jiacheng
Zou Yuhua zyh457314369@163.com

https://ror.org/05jy72h47 grid.490559.4 Department of Medical Imaging, the Ninth People’s Hospital of Suzhou, No. 2666 Ludang Road, Wujiang, Suzhou, Jiangsu 215200 China
2 9 2024
2 9 2024
2024
24 18922 4 2024
16 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Objective

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) improves lesion contrast with surrounding tissues through the injection of contrast agents. This enhancement allows for more precise lesion characterization, aiding in the early diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). This meta-analysis aims to assess the diagnostic efficacy of CECT in ccRCC and to provide an ideal imaging examination method for the preoperative diagnosis of ccRCC.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search across six major online databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, WANFANG DATA, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM). The objective was to collate and analyze studies that evaluate the diagnostic utility of CECT in the identification of ccRCC. Meta-disc 1.4 and Stata 16.0 were used to conduct a meta-analysis and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of CECT for ccRCC.

Results

The meta-analysis included 17 relevant studies investigating the diagnostic value of CECT for ccRCC. The combined sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.83–0.91) and 0.82 (95%CI: 0.75–0.87), respectively. Positive diagnostic likelihood ratio = 4.87 (95%CI: 3.47–6.84), negative diagnostic likelihood ratio = 0.15 (95%CI: 0.11–0.21), and diagnostic odds ratio = 32.67 (95%CI: 18.21–58.61). In addition, the area under the ROC curve was 0.92 (95%CI: 0.89–0.94), indicating that CECT has a decent discriminative ability in diagnosing ccRCC.

Conclusions

CECT is recognized as a highly effective imaging tool for diagnosing ccRCC. It provides valuable guidance in the preoperative assessment and planning of surgical strategies for patients with ccRCC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-024-01574-w.

Keywords

Contrast-enhanced computed Tomography
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma
Meta-analysis
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), a prevalent malignancy within the urological spectrum, originates from the renal cortex and constitutes approximately 2% of all adult cancers globally [1]. RCC is classified into two primary subtypes: clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC), including chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) and papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC). The predominant subtype, ccRCC [2], is known for its high malignancy and poor prognosis, leading to a higher mortality rate. ChRCC and pRCC have distinct pathological characteristics and prognostic outcomes. Characterized by extensive vascularization, ccRCC is a highly blood-supplied tumor, predisposing it to aggressive growth and distant metastasis [3]. The average five-year survival rate for ccRCC hovers around 55–60%. Notably, research indicates that patients with localized RCC lesions, absent peripheral invasion or distant metastasis, exhibit a significantly higher five-year survival rate of 91.7% [4]. This underscores the critical importance of early diagnosis in enhancing patient survival prospects.

Percutaneous renal biopsy stands as the definitive standard for the preoperative diagnosis of ccRCC. However, performing a preoperative biopsy requires careful consideration of factors such as the risk of tumor spread, the size of the biopsy needle, the physician’s proficiency, and the potential impact on treatment strategies [5]. Early stages of ccRCC often lack distinct clinical symptoms, leading to most diagnoses occurring incidentally during imaging investigations [6]. Imaging modalities provide a non-invasive, safe means to visualize internal body structures, organs, and densities, playing a crucial role in both the primary diagnosis and differential diagnosis of ccRCC. Consequently, the diagnostic process for ccRCC typically commences with an anatomical evaluation using imaging techniques, followed by histopathological validation.

Computed tomography (CT) stands as a primary imaging technique in the diagnosis of renal tumors, offering widespread availability and precise visualization of tumor extent. CECT, an advanced form of standard CT, is acknowledged as the gold standard in renal tumor imaging. In ccRCC, CT typically reveals lesions with heterogeneous iso- or hypo-densities compared to the normal renal parenchyma. A characteristic feature of ccRCC in CECT is a rapid enhancement followed by a quick washout, with lesions reaching a rapid peak in CT values during the corticomedullary phase and displaying moderate-to-high enhancement, followed by a swift decline in lesion density in the nephrographic phase, often lower than that of the surrounding renal parenchyma. A study involving 170 ccRCC, 57 pRCC, and 22 chRCC cases indicated a peak enhancement of ccRCC during the corticomedullary phase [7]. Liang and colleagues [8] analyzed CECT features in 82 ccRCC, 24 pRCC, and 19 chRCC cases, noting that ccRCC generally shows significantly greater contrast enhancement compared to most pRCC and chRCC. Heterogeneous enhancement is more frequently observed in ccRCC and pRCC lesions, whereas chRCC lesions more commonly exhibit uniform enhancement. Corroborating these findings, a retrospective study in the United States highlighted the significantly higher enhancement levels in ccRCC compared to other renal tumor types, with ccRCC predominantly showing heterogeneous enhancement in the nephrographic phase [9].

CECT can observe the changes in kidney lesions in real time through multiple directions and sections, and can also clearly display the surrounding blood flow conditions, providing a reference for the diagnosis of ccRCC before surgery. This study involved a comprehensive review of the literature on the use of CECT in the diagnosis of ccRCC. A meta-analysis was subsequently performed to demonstrate the high diagnostic efficacy of CECT in identifying ccRCC, providing a reliable imaging assessment for preoperative planning.

Methods

This study has been registered on PROSPERO with the registration number [CRD42024555363].

Search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive search across six online databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, WANFANG DATA, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM). The search covered all publications up to April 31, 2024. Our search strategy employed a combination of controlled vocabulary and free-text terms, tailored to each database’s unique features. The primary keywords included “contrast-enhanced computed tomography,” “CECT,” “clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” “ccRCC,” “computed tomography,” “enhanced CT,” “renal cell carcinoma, clear cell,” and “kidney cancer, clear cell.” To ensure comprehensive coverage, we also examined the references of the retrieved articles and reviewed relevant meta-analyses and papers. Additionally, a manual search was conducted to address any potential gaps in automated searches.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The evaluation process was conducted independently by two researchers, who thoroughly reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full texts of retrieved studies, strictly adhering to the established inclusion and exclusion criteria. In instances of disagreement regarding the inclusion of a study, a determination was made by discussion. The inclusion criteria for this study were defined as follows: (1) Literature related to the diagnosis of ccRCC using CECT, limited to publications in English and Chinese. (2) Diagnostic experimental studies. (3) Studies where the gold standard for diagnosing ccRCC involved pathological outcomes or long-term imaging follow-up. (4) Studies that provided complete datasets. The study established the following exclusion criteria: (1) Studies where the full text was not accessible. (2) Literature not about diagnostic experiments, including conference proceedings, lectures, case reports, and abstracts. (3) Studies that did not report essential diagnostic metrics, specifically true positive (TP), false positive (FP), false negative (FN), and true negative (TN) values. (4) Documents that represented redundant publications of previously released material.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two researchers (SJC and ZYH) independently assessed the quality of the literature and extracted the data. Both researchers hold advanced degrees in medical research and have extensive experience in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with multiple peer-reviewed publications in the field of medical imaging and oncology. In cases of disagreement, issues were resolved through discussion. Using a specifically designed data extraction form, two independent researchers undertook the task of extracting data from the selected studies, subsequently creating a comprehensive database. This database included pertinent details from each study, such as the first author’s name, publication year, country where the study was executed, study type, patient demographics (number, gender, age), the specific contrast agent and its dosage used in CECT, diagnostic methodologies, and key diagnostic values including true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives.

The quality of each study included in our analysis was thoroughly evaluated using the 14-item Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) instrument [10]. Each item on this scale was assessed with one of three possible responses: ‘Yes’, ‘No’, or ‘Unclear’.

Statistical analysis

Data extracted from the identified studies were analyzed using Meta-Disc 1.4 and Stata 16.0 software [11, 12]. We assessed the diagnostic efficacy of CECT in detecting ccRCC through metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Initially, Meta-Disc 1.4 was employed for threshold effect testing to determine heterogeneity among the included studies. The Cochrane Q test and I² statistic were then applied to evaluate inter-study heterogeneity, quantifying it based on P-values and I². Further analysis of effect sizes, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, AUC, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was conducted using Stata 17.0. A fixed-effect model was adopted for meta-analysis in cases of low heterogeneity (P > 0.05 and I² < 50%), while a random-effects model was used when heterogeneity was significant (P ≤ 0.05 or I² ≥ 50%). Sensitivity analyses were also performed to examine the robustness and reliability of the aggregated findings. Lastly, publication bias was investigated using Deek’s funnel plot, with a P-value ≤ 0.05 suggesting potential bias.

Results

Literature selection process, characteristics and quality assessment of included studies

In our comprehensive search across six databases, we identified a total of 4,167 articles: PubMed (678), Cochrane Library (11), Web of Science (237), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (2,095), WanFang Data (813), and CBM (333). No further articles were procured through manual search. After removing 2,913 duplicates, we reviewed the titles and abstracts, narrowing the selection to 20 articles. After full-text evaluation, three articles were excluded due to data unavailability or unusable format. Consequently, 17 articles were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1), involving 1,370 patients. The essential characteristics of the 12 studies included in the meta-analysis post-screening are presented in Table 1. [8, 13–28]. Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included studies for meta-analysis

Study, year	Nation	Study design	Number of patients	Gender	Age (years)	Contrast media	Dose	Diagnostic	
Male	Female	
Tamai 2005 [13]	Japan	prospective study	29	21	8	63.5±11.9	Iopamidol	100mL	Histopathologic examination	
Wang 2023 [14]	China	retrospective study	65	37	28	56.82±6.7	Iohexol	80mL	Histopathologic examination	
Wang 2021 [15]	China	retrospective study	105	55	50	53.55(13-81)	Ultravist	NA	Histopathologic examination	
Ren 2015 [16]	China	retrospective study	46	29	17	58(31-79)	Ultravist	80mL-100mL	Histopathologic examination	
Kim 2002 [17]	South Korea	retrospective study	110	78	32	56(22-79)	Iopamidol	120mL	Histopathologic examination	
He 2015 [18]	China	retrospective study	41	21	20	40.6±4.6	Omnipaque	1.2mL/kg	Histopathologic examination	
Xie 2016 [19]	China	retrospective study	82	42	40	53.0±13.6	Iopamiro	90mL	Histopathologic examination	
Gentili 2020 [20]	Italy	retrospective study	46	NA	NA	NA	Iomeron	1.5mL/kg	Histopathologic examination	
Jung 2012 [21]	Korea	retrospective study	143	101	42	57(20-82）	Ultravist	2mL/kg	Histopathologic examination	
Liang 2021 [8]	China	retrospective study	125	79	46	53.6±11.9	Onepike	300mg/ml	Histopathologic examination	
Hu 2014 [22]	China	retrospective study	117	71	46	NA	Iohexol	80mL	Histopathologic examination	
Pei 2010 [23]	China	retrospective study	50	32	18	53.26±11.5	Iohexol	1.5mL/kg	Histopathologic examination	
Zhu 2017 [24]	China	retrospective study	52	34	18	NA	Iohexol	80mL	Histopathologic examination	
Qu 2023 [25]	China	retrospective study	81	44	37	60 (37-83)	Iohexol	80mL-100mL	Histopathologic examination	
Li 2023 [26]	China	retrospective study	76	55	21	48.54±11.95	Iohexol	80mL-100mL	Histopathologic examination	
Lu 2023 [27]	China	retrospective study	100	54	46	56.70±7.80	Iohexol	1.5mL/kg	Histopathologic examination	
Qiao 2023 [28]	China	retrospective study	102	55	47	NA	Iopamidol	1.2mL/kg-1.5mL/kg	Histopathologic examination	

Fig. 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews

The 17 articles incorporated into this study underwent evaluation using the QUADAS-2 scale, a diagnostic quality assessment tool with 14 criteria. Each criterion was assessed in relation to its relevance to the included studies, employing “Yes,” “No,” and “Unclear” as response options. Table 2 presents the outcome of this quality assessment. All studies in this analysis were benchmarked against a gold standard. Criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were assessed as “Yes,” demonstrating that these studies adhered to reference standards consistent with the gold standard, thus minimizing bias. Criterion 4 was categorized as “Low Risk,” indicating a negligible bias in case selection. Criterion 11 received a consistent “Yes” rating, signifying the appropriateness of the interval between the evaluation test and the gold standard in the studies. Criteria 12, 13, and 14 were rated as “No,” suggesting a significant potential for bias. Table 2 Details of quality assessment with QUADAS scale diagnostic quality evaluation form

Study, year	Patient selection	Index test	Reference standard	Flow and timing	
Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	Q12	Q13	Q14	
Tamai, 2005 [13]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Wang, 2023 [14]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Wang, 2021 [15]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Ren, 2015 [16]	Yes	No	Yes	High risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Kim, 2002 [17]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
He, 2015 [18]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Xie, 2016 [19]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	
Gentili, 2020 [20]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	No	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Jung, 2012 [21]	Yes	Yes	No	High risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Liang, 2021 [8]	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Hu, 2014 [22]	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	
Pei, 2010 [23]	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	High risk	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Zhu, 2017 [24]	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Qu, 2023 [25]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Li, 2023 [26]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Lu, 2023 [27]	Yes	Yes	No	High risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	
Qiao, 2023 [28]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Low risk	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	

Heterogeneity test

Utilizing Meta-DiSc 1.4 software, we determined a Spearman correlation coefficient of -0.028 (P = 0.914), suggesting no threshold effect in the diagnostic methodology of CECT. Heterogeneity assessments carried out via Stata 16.0 showed significant variation for sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR, as indicated by Cochran-Q tests yielding P-values less than 0.05. Moreover, the I² values for these indicators were predominantly above 50% (as shown in Supplemental Figs. 1, 2, and 3). Consequently, a random-effects model was utilized in this study to integrate these diverse effect sizes.

Pooling of effect sizes for diagnostic value assessment

This study incorporated 17 articles that evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of CECT in identifying ccRCC. The synthesized results are detailed in Table 3. The aggregated sensitivity was found to be 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83–0.91), and specificity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75–0.87). The PLR stood at 4.87 (95% CI: 3.47–6.84), while the NLR was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.11–0.21). The DOR was calculated as 32.67 (95% CI: 18.21–58.61). Additionally, the AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89–0.94). An AUC value nearing 1 signifies the high diagnostic accuracy of CECT in ccRCC, indicating the method’s robustness (Fig. 2). Table 3 Pooled effect size for diagnostic value assessment

Study, year	Sensitivity (95%CI)	Specificity (95%CI)	PLR (95%CI)	NLR (95%CI)	DOR (95%CI)	
Tamai, 2005 [13]	0.89 (0.65-0.99)	0.82 (0.48-0.98)	4.89 (1.38-17.31)	0.14 (0.04-0.52)	36.00 (4.31-300.91)	
Wang, 2023 [14]	0.94 (0.84-0.99)	0.71 (0.42-0.92)	3.29 (1.43-7.56)	0.08 (0.03- 0.26)	40.00 (7.72-207.18)	
Wang, 2021 [15]	0.96 (0.89-0.99)	0.87 (0.70-0.96)	7.44 (2.98-18.58)	0.05 (0.02-0.14)	159.75 (33.53-761.11)	
Ren, 2015 [16]	0.84 (0.67-0.95)	0.93 (0.66-1.00)	11.81 (1.78-78.55)	0.17 (0.07-0.38)	70.20 (7.42 -663.82)	
Kim, 2002 [17]	0.84 (0.74-0.92)	0.91 (0.76-0.98)	9.54 (3.23-28.24)	0.17 (0.10-0.29)	55.11 (14.49-209.60)	
He, 2015 [18]	0.95 (0.76-1.00)	0.90 (0.68-0.99)	9.52 (2.55-35.59)	0.05 (0.01-0.36)	180.00 (15.02-2156.92)	
Xie, 2016 [19]	0.61 (0.46-0.75)	0.82 (0.65-0.93)	3.37 (1.58-7.18)	0.47 (0.32 -0.70)	7.11 (2.47-20.40)	
Gentili, 2020 [20]	0.96 (0.80-1.00)	0.62 (0.38-0.82)	2.52 (1.45-4.37)	0.06 (0.01-0.45)	39.00 (4.38-346.97)	
Jung, 2012 [21]	0.85 (0.77-0.91)	0.63 (0.45-0.79)	2.29 (1.48-3.55)	0.24 (0.14-0.39)	9.66 (4.10-22.77)	
Liang, 2021 [8]	0.79 (0.69-0.87)	0.74 (0.59-0.86)	3.10 (1.84 -5.22)	0.28 (0.18-0.44)	11.12 (4.67 -26.51)	
Hu, 2014 [22]	0.86 (0.75-0.93)	0.64 (0.47-0.79)	2.38 (1.55-3.66)	0.23 (0.12-0.42)	10.54 (4.13-26.88)	
Pei, 2010 [23]	0.80 (0.65-0.91)	0.78 (0.40-0.97)	3.62 (1.06-12.41)	0.25 (0.12-0.51)	14.44 (2.51-83.17)	
Zhu, 2017 [24]	0.93 (0.77-0.99)	0.87 (0.66-0.97)	7.14 (2.47-20.60)	0.08 (0.02-0.30)	90.00 (13.73-590.00)	
Qu, 2023 [25]	0.84 (0.73-0.92)	0.94 (0.73-1.00)	15.14 (2.25-102.03)	0.17 (0.09-0.30)	90.10 (10.74 -755.90)	
Li, 2023 [26]	0.95 (0.82-0.99)	0.84 (0.69-0.94)	6.00 (2.87-12.55)	0.06 (0.02-0.24)	96.00 (18.08-509.79)	
Lu, 2023 [27]	0.93 (0.84-0.98)	0.98 (0.87-1.00)	37.33 (5.38-258.88)	0.07 (0.03-0.18)	546.00 (58.76-5073.20)	
Qiao, 2023 [28]	0.83 (0.72-0.90)	0.67 (0.46-0.83)	2.48 (1.44-4.27)	0.26 (0.15-0.46)	9.54 (3.51 -25.90)	
Pooled effect size	0.88 (0.83-0.91)	0.82 (0.75-0.87)	4.87 (3.47-6.84)	0.15 (0.11-0.21)	32.67 (18.21-58.61)	
PLR Positive Diagnostic Likelihood Ratio, NLR Negative Diagnostic Likelihood Ratio, DOR Diagnostic Odds Ratio

Fig. 2 The area under the curve of SROC in CECT

Publication bias analysis

The Deeks funnel plot analysis of the 17 studies included in the meta-analysis demonstrated an even distribution of DOR values on both sides of the pooled effect size (p = 0.48), indicating the absence of significant publication bias among the included studies in the meta-analysis (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3 Deeks’ funnel plot for publication assessment

Evaluation of clinical effect

Applying Fagan’s nomogram, we assessed the clinical utility of CECT in the diagnosis of ccRCC. With an initial pre-test probability of 50%, the post-test probability escalated to 83%. Conversely, maintaining the same pre-test probability at 50%, the post-test probability was markedly reduced to 13%. This analysis substantiates the significant clinical relevance of CECT in accurately diagnosing ccRCC (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Fagan’s nomogram in detecting diagnostic probability of CECT for ccRCC

Discussion

This study builds on the previous systematic review which included 40 articles analyzing various imaging modalities such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT), and ultrasound (US) for diagnosing and staging renal-cell carcinoma in adults. While the previous review provided a broad assessment of multiple imaging techniques for RCC in a cohort of 4354 patients, our study specifically narrows the focus to the diagnostic performance of CECT in ccRCC. By concentrating solely on CECT, we aim to provide a more detailed and precise analysis of its diagnostic accuracy in identifying and staging ccRCC. This focused approach allows us to demonstrate CECT’s robustness and effectiveness as a diagnostic tool for ccRCC, providing specific insights into its utility that were not the primary focus of the broader meta-analysis. In this analysis, 17 studies with a collective cohort of 1,370 patients were reviewed. The sensitivity and specificity of CECT for diagnosing ccRCC exceeded 80%, underscoring CECT’s robust diagnostic performance. Additionally, a higher PLR, a lower NLR, and a DOR exceeding 1, especially with increasing values, signify enhanced diagnostic and differential diagnostic proficiency. In this context, CECT’s PLR of 4.87, NLR of 0.15, and DOR of 32.67 for ccRCC diagnosis reinforce its substantial diagnostic and differential diagnostic strength. Moreover, the AUC for CECT stood at 0.92, nearing 1, further indicating its high accuracy and efficacy in the diagnosis of ccRCC.

Several studies have highlighted the distinct advantages of CECT in diagnosing ccRCC [29–31]. CECT is unaffected by factors such as breathing, body size, or acoustic shadows from gas and bones, enabling clear anatomical cross-sections. Its extensive scanning range allows for the effective evaluation of potential distant metastases. Additionally, CECT can assess enhancement in multiple lesions within a single kidney and detect abnormal lesions in the opposite kidney, offering a broader diagnostic scope.

In addition, research has established that the pathological grade of ccRCC serves as an independent prognostic factor [32]. The Fuhrman grading system is instrumental in determining the malignancy severity, metastatic potential, and aggressive behavior of renal cancer. A higher Fuhrman grade in ccRCC correlates with increased malignancy and aggressiveness, leading to decreased survival rates. In contrast, lower-grade ccRCC, characterized by lower malignancy levels, can be managed with diverse treatment options, generally resulting in a positive prognosis [32]. Yang et al. demonstrated that higher Fuhrman grades, as identified through triphasic dynamic contrast-enhanced CT scans in ccRCC, are associated with lower cancer-specific and 3-year survival rates [33]. Furthermore, pathological grading, a key diagnostic tool for ccRCC, manifests distinct enhancement levels in dynamic contrast-enhanced CT scans [34]. Studies have consistently shown that lower-grade ccRCC (Fuhrman grades 1–2) display higher enhancement values in preoperative CT scans compared to their higher-grade counterparts (Fuhrman grades 3–4) [35, 36]. Additionally, CT imaging features such as necrosis can be an independent predictor of higher-grade ccRCC, as per the Fuhrman grading system [37]. Coy et al. [35], in their study of 127 cases of ccRCC, found that the enhancement values of 3D volumetric CT during the corticomedullary and excretory phases negatively correlated with tumor grade. Notably, the enhancement was significantly higher in lower-grade lesions than in higher-grade ones. This finding was potentially linked to the increased necrosis and the diminished, less mature vasculature characteristic of higher-grade lesions.

This study is subject to several limitations. First, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed in the majority of effect sizes analyzed. Subgroup analyses were not conducted, and factors such as the type of contrast agent and lesion size may have contributed to this heterogeneity. Second, the study populations in the majority of included articles were predominantly Asian, raising the possibility of regional bias. Third, of the primary studies included in our analysis, only one was a prospective study. The predominance of retrospective studies may lead to an overestimation of the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Consequently, there is a need for further prospective research to more accurately assess the diagnostic efficacy of CECT in ccRCC.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that CECT has high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing ccRCC. Future research comparing CECT with other imaging modalities like MRI, PET-CT, and US is needed to establish the most effective imaging strategy for ccRCC. CECT’s significant utility in the preoperative assessment of ccRCC makes it valuable for evaluating patient conditions and planning surgical strategies.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1.

Abbreviations

RCC Renal Cell Carcinoma

ccRCC Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

non-ccRCC Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

ChRCC Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma

pRCC Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

CECT Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography

CNKI China National Knowledge Infrastructure

CBM Chinese BioMedical Literature Database

QUADAS-2 Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2

Meta-Disc 1.4 Software for Meta-analysis of Test Accuracy Data

Stata 16.0 Statistical Software for Data Analysis

PLR Positive Likelihood Ratio

NLR Negative Likelihood Ratio

DOR Diagnostic Odds Ratio

AUC Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve

SROC Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic

MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PET-CT Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography

US Ultrasound

TP True Positive

FP False Positive

FN False Negative

TN True Negative

CI Confidence Interval

Acknowledgements

None.

Authors’ contributions

SJC, and ZYH conceived of the study and participated in its design, conducted the systematic literature review and data analyses, drafted the article, and critically revised the article. All authors have confirmed the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

There was no funding in this paper.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was not needed because this is a meta-analysis based on published records.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Bray F Ferlay J Soerjomataram I Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2018 68 394 424 10.3322/caac.21492 30207593
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492.30207593 10.3322/caac.21492
2. Bahadoram S, Davoodi M, Hassanzadeh S et al. Renal cell carcinoma: an overview of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. G Ital Nefrol. 2022;39:2022-vol3.
3. Chevrier S Levine JH Zanotelli VRT An immune atlas of clear cell renal cell carcinoma Cell 2017 169 736 e749718 10.1016/j.cell.2017.04.016 28475899
Chevrier S, Levine JH, Zanotelli VRT, et al. An immune atlas of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cell. 2017;169:736-e749718. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.04.016.28475899 10.1016/j.cell.2017.04.016
4. Pullen RL Jr Renal cell carcinoma, part 1 Nursing 2021 51 34 40 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000753972.19135.dc 34156999
Pullen RL Jr. Renal cell carcinoma, part 1. Nursing. 2021;51:34–40. 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000753972.19135.dc.34156999 10.1097/01.NURSE.0000753972.19135.dc
5. Cotta BH Meagher MF Bradshaw A Percutaneous renal mass biopsy: historical perspective, current status, and future considerations Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2019 19 301 308 10.1080/14737140.2019.1571915 30656989
Cotta BH, Meagher MF, Bradshaw A, et al. Percutaneous renal mass biopsy: historical perspective, current status, and future considerations. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2019;19:301–8. 10.1080/14737140.2019.1571915.30656989 10.1080/14737140.2019.1571915
6. Jayson M Sanders H Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma Urology 1998 51 203 205 10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00506-2 9495698
Jayson M, Sanders H. Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 1998;51:203–5. 10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00506-2.9495698 10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00506-2
7. Young JR Margolis D Sauk S Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT Radiology 2013 267 444 453 10.1148/radiol.13112617 23382290
Young JR, Margolis D, Sauk S, et al. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT. Radiology. 2013;267:444–53. 10.1148/radiol.13112617.23382290 10.1148/radiol.13112617
8. Liang RX Wang H Zhang HP The value of real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with CT enhancement in the differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma Urol Oncol 2021 39 837 e819-837 e828 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.09.004
Liang RX, Wang H, Zhang HP, et al. The value of real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with CT enhancement in the differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2021;39:837 e819-837 e828. 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.09.004.10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.09.004
9. Ishigami K Pakalniskis MG Leite LV Characterization of renal cell carcinoma, oncocytoma, and lipid-poor angiomyolipoma by unenhanced, nephrographic, and delayed phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography Clin Imaging 2015 39 76 84 10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.008 25457535
Ishigami K, Pakalniskis MG, Leite LV, et al. Characterization of renal cell carcinoma, oncocytoma, and lipid-poor angiomyolipoma by unenhanced, nephrographic, and delayed phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Clin Imaging. 2015;39:76–84. 10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.008.25457535 10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.008
10. Whiting PF Rutjes AW Westwood ME QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 2011 155 529 36 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 22007046
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.22007046 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
11. Nyaga VN Arbyn M Aerts M Metaprop: a tata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data Arch Public Health 2014 72 39 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 25810908
Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a tata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health. 2014;72: 39. 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39.25810908 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39
12. Harris RJ Bradburn MJ Deeks JJ Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis Stata J 2008 8 3 28 10.1177/1536867x0800800102
Harris RJ, Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, et al. Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2008;8:3–28. 10.1177/1536867x0800800102.10.1177/1536867x0800800102
13. Tamai H Takiguchi Y Oka M Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid renal tumors J Ultrasound Med 2005 24 1635 1640 10.7863/jum.2005.24.12.1635 16301719
Tamai H, Takiguchi Y, Oka M, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid renal tumors. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:1635–40. 10.7863/jum.2005.24.12.1635.16301719 10.7863/jum.2005.24.12.1635
14. Wang MM The application value of CT multiphase dynamic enhanced scanning in preoperative diagnosis of renal clear cell carcinoma Mod Med Imageology 2023 32 80 3
Wang MM. The application value of CT multiphase dynamic enhanced scanning in preoperative diagnosis of renal clear cell carcinoma. Mod Med Imageology. 2023;32:80–3 (in Chinese).
15. Wang X Song G Jiang H Differentiation of renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat from small clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using specific region of interest on contrast-enhanced CT: a new combination of quantitative tools Cancer Imaging 2021 21 47 10.1186/s40644-021-00417-3 34225784
Wang X, Song G, Jiang H. Differentiation of renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat from small clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using specific region of interest on contrast-enhanced CT: a new combination of quantitative tools. Cancer Imaging. 2021;21:47. 10.1186/s40644-021-00417-3.34225784 10.1186/s40644-021-00417-3
16. Ren A Cai F Shang YN Differentiation of renal oncocytoma and renal clear cell carcinoma using relative CT enhancement ratio Chin Med J (Engl) 2015 128 175 179 10.4103/0366-6999.149190 25591558
Ren A, Cai F, Shang YN, et al. Differentiation of renal oncocytoma and renal clear cell carcinoma using relative CT enhancement ratio. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015;128:175–9. 10.4103/0366-6999.149190.25591558 10.4103/0366-6999.149190
17. Kim JK Kim TK Ahn HJ Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 178 1499 1506 10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781499 12034628
Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, et al. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1499–506. 10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781499.12034628 10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781499
18. He J Gan W Liu S Dynamic computed tomographic features of adult renal cell carcinoma associated with Xp11.2 Translocation/TFE3 gene fusions: comparison with clear cell renal cell arcinoma J Comput Assist Tomogr 2015 39 730 736 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000263 25955396
He J, Gan W, Liu S, et al. Dynamic computed tomographic features of adult renal cell carcinoma associated with Xp11.2 Translocation/TFE3 gene fusions: comparison with clear cell renal cell arcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39:730–6. 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000263.25955396 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000263
19. Xie P Yang Z Yuan Z Lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma: differentiation from clear cell renal cell carcinoma using wash-in and washout characteristics on contrast-enhanced computed tomography Oncol Lett 2016 11 2327 2331 10.3892/ol.2016.4214 26998171
Xie P, Yang Z, Yuan Z. Lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma: differentiation from clear cell renal cell carcinoma using wash-in and washout characteristics on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Oncol Lett. 2016;11:2327–31. 10.3892/ol.2016.4214.26998171 10.3892/ol.2016.4214
20. Gentili F Bronico I Maestroni U Small renal masses (= 4 cm): differentiation of oncocytoma from renal clear cell carcinoma using ratio of lesion to cortex attenuation and aorta-lesion attenuation difference (ALAD) on contrast-enhanced CT Radiol Med 2020 125 1280 7 10.1007/s11547-020-01199-7 32385827
Gentili F, Bronico I, Maestroni U, et al. Small renal masses (= 4 cm): differentiation of oncocytoma from renal clear cell carcinoma using ratio of lesion to cortex attenuation and aorta-lesion attenuation difference (ALAD) on contrast-enhanced CT. Radiol Med. 2020;125:1280–7. 10.1007/s11547-020-01199-7.32385827 10.1007/s11547-020-01199-7
21. Jung SC Cho JY Kim SH Subtype differentiation of small renal cell carcinomas on three-phase MDCT: usefulness of the measurement of degree and heterogeneity of enhancement Acta Radiol 2012 53 112 118 10.1258/ar.2011.110221 22114020
Jung SC, Cho JY, Kim SH. Subtype differentiation of small renal cell carcinomas on three-phase MDCT: usefulness of the measurement of degree and heterogeneity of enhancement. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:112–8. 10.1258/ar.2011.110221.22114020 10.1258/ar.2011.110221
22. Hu HY Zhao YE Wei SP Comparative study on the features of subtype of renal cell carcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed omography Chin Computed Med Imaging 2014 20 59 63
Hu HY, Zhao YE, Wei SP, et al. Comparative study on the features of subtype of renal cell carcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed omography. Chin Computed Med Imaging. 2014;20:59–63 (in Chinese).
23. Pei JG Liu XS Liu HN Study of the relationship between diagnostic CT imaging and pathological types of renal cell carcinoma Shandong Med J 2010 50 29 30
Pei JG, Liu XS, Liu HN. Study of the relationship between diagnostic CT imaging and pathological types of renal cell carcinoma. Shandong Med J. 2010;50:29–30 (in Chinese).
24. Zhu GM Li YY Liang JS Comparison of multi-slice piral CT features of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma,renal oncocytoma and clear-cell renal cell carcinoma Chin J Med Imaging 2017 25 136 140145
Zhu GM, Li YY, Liang JS, et al. Comparison of multi-slice piral CT features of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma,renal oncocytoma and clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Chin J Med Imaging. 2017;25:136–140145 (in Chinese).
25. Qu JY Jiang H Song XH Four-phase computed tomography helps differentiation of renal oncocytoma with central hypodense areas from clear cell renal cell carcinoma Diagn Interv Radiol 2023 29 205 11 10.5152/dir.2022.21834 36960636
Qu JY, Jiang H, Song XH, et al. Four-phase computed tomography helps differentiation of renal oncocytoma with central hypodense areas from clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023;29:205–11. 10.5152/dir.2022.21834.36960636 10.5152/dir.2022.21834
26. Li R Zhao ZY Shan B The diagnostic value of multi-slice spiral CT enhanced scanning for renal cell carcinoma of different pathological subtypes Shandong Med J 2023 63 67 9
Li R, Zhao ZY, Shan B, et al. The diagnostic value of multi-slice spiral CT enhanced scanning for renal cell carcinoma of different pathological subtypes. Shandong Med J. 2023;63:67–9 (in Chinese).
27. Lu L Liu CL Chen DQ Radiomics based on enhanced CT in the differentiation of low-grade clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma Chin Imaging J Integr Tradit Western Med 2023 21 247 251258
Lu L, Liu CL, Chen DQ, et al. Radiomics based on enhanced CT in the differentiation of low-grade clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Chin Imaging J Integr Tradit Western Med. 2023;21:247–251258 (in Chinese).
28. Qiao GZ Liu DM Yu Z Application of radiomics based on contrast-enhanced CT and clinical features in the ifferential diagnosis of small clear cell renal cell carcinoma and small non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma J Clin Radiol 2023 42 1284 91
Qiao GZ, Liu DM, Yu Z, et al. Application of radiomics based on contrast-enhanced CT and clinical features in the ifferential diagnosis of small clear cell renal cell carcinoma and small non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Radiol. 2023;42:1284–91 (in Chinese).
29. Fateh SM Arkawazi LA Tahir SH Renal cell carcinoma T staging: diagnostic accuracy of preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography Mol Clin Oncol 2023 18 11 10.3892/mco.2023.2607 36761384
Fateh SM, Arkawazi LA, Tahir SH, et al. Renal cell carcinoma T staging: diagnostic accuracy of preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Mol Clin Oncol. 2023;18:11. 10.3892/mco.2023.2607.36761384 10.3892/mco.2023.2607
30. Liu X Gao Y Yang CY Comparison of the efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced CT in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant renal space occupying lesions Chin J Gen Pract 2020 18 1911 5
Liu X, Gao Y, Yang CY, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced CT in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant renal space occupying lesions. Chin J Gen Pract. 2020;18:1911–5 (in Chinese).
31. Wu L Zha YF Chen W Diagnostic value of contrast enhanced US for cystic renal masses: a meta analysis J China Clin Med Imaging 2013 24 780 3
Wu L, Zha YF, Chen W, et al. Diagnostic value of contrast enhanced US for cystic renal masses: a meta analysis. J China Clin Med Imaging. 2013;24:780–3 (in Chinese).
32. Jamil ML Keeley J Sood A Long-term risk of recurrence in surgically treated renal cell carcinoma: a post hoc analysis of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network E2805 trial cohort Eur Urol 2020 77 277 281 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.028 31703971
Jamil ML, Keeley J, Sood A, et al. Long-term risk of recurrence in surgically treated renal cell carcinoma: a post hoc analysis of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network E2805 trial cohort. Eur Urol. 2020;77:277–81. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.028.31703971 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.028
33. Yang RN Liu XD Wu P Diagnostic value of CT three-phase dynamic enhanced scan in early renal clear cell carcinoma J Clin Pathological Res 2019 39 2792 6
Yang RN, Liu XD, Wu P. Diagnostic value of CT three-phase dynamic enhanced scan in early renal clear cell carcinoma. J Clin Pathological Res. 2019;39:2792–6 (in Chinese).
34. He DJ Ling N Wang WW Diagnostic value of MSCT for clear cell renal cell carcinoma and its fuhrman classification Chin J CT MRI 2020 18 91 94110
He DJ, Ling N, Wang WW. Diagnostic value of MSCT for clear cell renal cell carcinoma and its fuhrman classification. Chin J CT MRI. 2020;18:91–94110 (in Chinese).
35. Coy H Young JR Pantuck AJ Association of tumor grade, enhancement on multiphasic CT and microvessel density in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020 45 3184 92 10.1007/s00261-019-02271-1 31650375
Coy H, Young JR, Pantuck AJ, et al. Association of tumor grade, enhancement on multiphasic CT and microvessel density in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45:3184–92. 10.1007/s00261-019-02271-1.31650375 10.1007/s00261-019-02271-1
36. Halefoglu AM Ozagari AA Tumor grade estimation of clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas using contrast-enhanced MDCT and FSE T2 weighted MR imaging: radiology-pathology correlation Radiol Med 2021 126 1139 48 10.1007/s11547-021-01350-y 34100169
Halefoglu AM, Ozagari AA. Tumor grade estimation of clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas using contrast-enhanced MDCT and FSE T2 weighted MR imaging: radiology-pathology correlation. Radiol Med. 2021;126:1139–48. 10.1007/s11547-021-01350-y.34100169 10.1007/s11547-021-01350-y
37. Oh S Sung DJ Yang KS Correlation of CT imaging features and tumor size with Fuhrman grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma Acta Radiol 2017 58 376 384 10.1177/0284185116649795 27235451
Oh S, Sung DJ, Yang KS, et al. Correlation of CT imaging features and tumor size with Fuhrman grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 2017;58:376–84. 10.1177/0284185116649795.27235451 10.1177/0284185116649795
