Sonoelastography for differential diagnosis between malignant and benign parotid lesions: a meta-analysis

Objectives To assess the performance of sonoelastography for differential diagnosis between malignant and benign parotid lesions using a meta-analysis. Methods An independent literature search of English medical databases, such as PubMed, Embase and Medline ( Embase.com ), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Ovid was performed. The diagnostic accuracy of sonoelastography was compared with that of histopathology and/or cytology, which was used as reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the accuracy of sonoelastography. A meta-regression analysis evaluating imaging mechanisms, shear wave elastography techniques, assessment methods and QUADAS scores was performed. Results Ten eligible studies that included a total sample of 711 patients with 725 parotid lesions were included. Sonoelastography showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.59–0.74), specificity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.60–0.68), DOR of 8.00 (95% CI 2.96–21.63) and an AUC of 0.77. The results of the meta-regression analysis revealed that no heterogeneity was due to the imaging mechanism ( p = 0.119), shear wave elastography technique ( p = 0.473) or QUADAS score ( p = 0.462). However, the assessment method was a significant factor that affected the study heterogeneity ( p = 0.035). According to the subgroup analysis, quantitative and semiquantitative methods performed better than qualitative ones. Conclusion Overall, sonoelastography has a limited value for differential diagnosis between malignant and benign parotid lesions. Quantitative and semiquantitative methods perform better than qualitative ones. Key Points • Overall, sonoelastography has a limited value for differential diagnosis between malignant and benign parotid lesions. • Quantitative and semiquantitative assessment methods perform better than qualitative ones. • Semiquantitative and quantitative methods are automatically calculated by an ultrasound machine and are thus less operator-dependent.