AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search, studies were included that allowed construction of contingency tables for detection of lymph node metastases using CT or MRI. In addition, a summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included. For CT, pooled sensitivity was 0.42 (0.26-0.56 95% CI) and pooled specificity was 0.82 (0.8-0.83 95% CI). For MRI, the pooled sensitivity was 0.39 (0.22-0.56 95% CI) and pooled specificity was 0.82 (0.79-0.83 95% CI). The differences in performance of CT and MRI were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CT and MRI demonstrate an equally poor performance in the detection of lymph node metastases from prostate cancer. Reliance on either CT or MRI will misrepresent the patient's true status regarding nodal metastases, and thus misdirect the therapeutic strategies offered to the patient.
AIM: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer. METHODS: After a comprehensive literature search, studies were included that allowed construction of contingency tables for detection of lymph node metastases using CT or MRI. In addition, a summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies were included. For CT, pooled sensitivity was 0.42 (0.26-0.56 95% CI) and pooled specificity was 0.82 (0.8-0.83 95% CI). For MRI, the pooled sensitivity was 0.39 (0.22-0.56 95% CI) and pooled specificity was 0.82 (0.79-0.83 95% CI). The differences in performance of CT and MRI were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CT and MRI demonstrate an equally poor performance in the detection of lymph node metastases from prostate cancer. Reliance on either CT or MRI will misrepresent the patient's true status regarding nodal metastases, and thus misdirect the therapeutic strategies offered to the patient.
Authors: David Schilling; Ulf Boekeler; Georgios Gakis; Christian Schwentner; Stefan Corvin; Karl Sotlar; Arndt-Christian Müller; Roland Bares; Arnulf Stenzl Journal: World J Urol Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: D Gabriele; D Collura; M Oderda; I Stura; C Fiorito; F Porpiglia; C Terrone; M Zacchero; C Guiot; P Gabriele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Maria Vinsensia; Peter L Chyoke; Boris Hadaschik; Tim Holland-Letz; Jan Moltz; Klaus Kopka; Isabel Rauscher; Walter Mier; Markus Schwaiger; Uwe Haberkorn; Tobias Mauer; Clemens Kratochwil; Matthias Eiber; Frederik L Giesel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Hanneke J M Meijer; Oscar A Debats; Emile N J Th van Lin; Marco van Vulpen; J Alfred Witjes; Wim J G Oyen; Jelle O Barentsz; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Ansje S Fortuin; Robert Jan Smeenk; Hanneke J M Meijer; Alfred J Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.092