4 results on '"Di Valerio EA"'
Search Results
2. Can magnetic resonance imaging differentiate muscle invasion (T2) and lamina propria invasion (T1) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System accuracy.
- Author
-
Jazayeri SB, Dehghanbanadaki H, Hosseini M, Taghipour P, Bacchus MW, Di Valerio EA, Sarabchian E, Balaji KC, and Bandyk M
- Abstract
Background: Vesical Imaging-Reporting and Data System (VI-RADS) was developed as a structured reporting tool to anticipate the possibility of muscle invasion. This study is aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of VI-RADS for discriminating T2 from T1 bladder cancer., Materials and Methods: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase were searched on October 4, 2021, for studies with the following characteristics: (1) bladder cancer patient population, (2) VI-RADS as an index test, (3) retransurethral resection of bladder tumor/cystectomy as a reference, and (4) adequate VI-RADS score data for T1 and T2 lesions. The analyses were performed using the binary regression model of MIDAS in Stata., Results: Six studies with 624 magnetic resonance imaging reports were included. The receiver operating characteristics curve for differentiation of T2 from T1 bladder cancer showed an area under the curve of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.95) for a VI-RADS ≥3 and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79) for a VI-RADS ≥4. A VI-RADS ≥3 showed high sensitivity of 93% (95% CI, 85%-97%), specificity of 61% (95% CI, 30%-86%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.4 (95% CI, 1.1-5.3), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.11 (95% CI, 0.05-0.24). A total of 10.4% of T2 lesions were scored as VI-RADS 2, while 10% of T1 lesions were scored as VI-RADS 4 or 5., Conclusions: The VI-RADS ≥3 has high accuracy and sensitivity for detecting muscle invasion in borderline populations of T1 or T2 bladder cancer. Thus, the VI-RADS could be a good non-invasive screening test for the detection of T2 urothelial lesions., Competing Interests: The authors state that that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Inter-reader reliability of the vesical imaging-reporting and data system (VI-RADS) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Author
-
Jazayeri SB, Dehghanbanadaki H, Hosseini M, Taghipour P, Bazargani S, Thomas D, Feibus A, Sarabchian E, Bacchus MW, Di Valerio EA, Bandyk M, and Balaji KC
- Subjects
- Humans, Male, Reproducibility of Results, ROC Curve, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Muscles, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Retrospective Studies, Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
- Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic agreement between readers in VI-RADS interpretation to detect muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) preoperatively, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data. Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched up to November 13, 2021. Case reports, review articles, editorials, and studies with insufficient data were eliminated. The Quality Appraisal of the Diagnostic Reliability Checklist was used to assess the risk of bias. The degree of agreement was determined by Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) for comparison of data. The heterogeneity of these studies was explored using subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis. The level of confidence was set at 0.05. All analyses were conducted in STATA 16.0. Overall, 19 eligible studies, consisting of 2439 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. The inter-reader agreement for VI-RADS in MIBC detection ranged from κ of 0.45 to 0.96 among included studies. The pooled inter-reader reliability was calculated as 0.76 [95% CI 0.73-0.80; I
2 = 92.13%, Q(50) = 635.08, p < 0.01]. Sources of heterogeneity included magnetic strength, T2WI slice thickness, number of readers, sample size, study design, number of centers, year of publication, proportion of male patients, and mean age. There is substantial reliability in VI-RADS interpretation for MIBC among radiologists with various levels of expertise. The high degree of inter-reader agreement for MIBC detection supports the implementation of VI-RADS in routine clinical practice for the staging paradigm of bladder cancer., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study.
- Author
-
Gerkin RC, Ohla K, Veldhuizen MG, Joseph PV, Kelly CE, Bakke AJ, Steele KE, Farruggia MC, Pellegrino R, Pepino MY, Bouysset C, Soler GM, Pereda-Loth V, Dibattista M, Cooper KW, Croijmans I, Di Pizio A, Ozdener MH, Fjaeldstad AW, Lin C, Sandell MA, Singh PB, Brindha VE, Olsson SB, Saraiva LR, Ahuja G, Alwashahi MK, Bhutani S, D'Errico A, Fornazieri MA, Golebiowski J, Hwang LD, Öztürk L, Roura E, Spinelli S, Whitcroft KL, Faraji F, Fischmeister FPS, Heinbockel T, Hsieh JW, Huart C, Konstantinidis I, Menini A, Morini G, Olofsson JK, Philpott CM, Pierron D, Shields VDC, Voznessenskaya VV, Albayay J, Altundag A, Bensafi M, Bock MA, Calcinoni O, Fredborg W, Laudamiel C, Lim J, Lundström JN, Macchi A, Meyer P, Moein ST, Santamaría E, Sengupta D, Domínguez PP, Yanık H, Boesveldt S, de Groot JHB, Dinnella C, Freiherr J, Laktionova T, Mariño S, Monteleone E, Nunez-Parra A, Abdulrahman O, Ritchie M, Thomas-Danguin T, Walsh-Messinger J, Al Abri R, Alizadeh R, Bignon E, Cantone E, Cecchini MP, Chen J, Guàrdia MD, Hoover KC, Karni N, Navarro M, Nolden AA, Mazal PP, Rowan NR, Sarabi-Jamab A, Archer NS, Chen B, Di Valerio EA, Feeney EL, Frasnelli J, Hannum M, Hopkins C, Klein H, Mignot C, Mucignat C, Ning Y, Ozturk EE, Peng M, Saatci O, Sell EA, Yan CH, Alfaro R, Cecchetto C, Coureaud G, Herriman RD, Justice JM, Kaushik PK, Koyama S, Overdevest JB, Pirastu N, Ramirez VA, Roberts SC, Smith BC, Cao H, Wang H, Balungwe P, Baguma M, Hummel T, Hayes JE, Reed DR, Niv MY, Munger SD, and Parma V
- Abstract
Background: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19., Methods: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery., Results: Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset., Conclusions: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.