CONTEXT: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) emerged as a promising test in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and showed encouraging results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combined MRI/MRSI in prostate cancer and to explore risk profiles with highest benefit. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The authors searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library, and the authors screened reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language restrictions. The last search was performed in August 2008. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 31 test-accuracy studies (1765 patients); 16 studies (17 populations) with a total of 581 patients were suitable for meta-analysis. Nine combined MRI/MRSI studies (10 populations) examining men with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer (297 patients; 1518 specimens) had a pooled sensitivity and specificity on prostate subpart level of 68% (95% CI, 56-78%) and 85% (95% CI, 78-90%), respectively. Compared with patients at high risk for clinically relevant cancer (six studies), sensitivity was lower in low-risk patients (four studies) (58% [46-69%] vs 74% [58-85%]; p>0.05) but higher for specificity (91% [86-94%] vs 78% [70-84%]; p<0.01). Seven studies examining patients with suspected prostate cancer at combined MRI/MRSI (284 patients) had an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity on patients level of 82% (59-94%) and 88% (80-95%). In the low-risk group (five studies) these values were 75% (39-93%) and 91% (77-97%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of small studies suggest that MRI combined with MRSI could be a rule-in test for low-risk patients. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies and cost-effectiveness needs to be established.
CONTEXT: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) emerged as a promising test in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and showed encouraging results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combined MRI/MRSI in prostate cancer and to explore risk profiles with highest benefit. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The authors searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library, and the authors screened reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language restrictions. The last search was performed in August 2008. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 31 test-accuracy studies (1765 patients); 16 studies (17 populations) with a total of 581 patients were suitable for meta-analysis. Nine combined MRI/MRSI studies (10 populations) examining men with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer (297 patients; 1518 specimens) had a pooled sensitivity and specificity on prostate subpart level of 68% (95% CI, 56-78%) and 85% (95% CI, 78-90%), respectively. Compared with patients at high risk for clinically relevant cancer (six studies), sensitivity was lower in low-risk patients (four studies) (58% [46-69%] vs 74% [58-85%]; p>0.05) but higher for specificity (91% [86-94%] vs 78% [70-84%]; p<0.01). Seven studies examining patients with suspected prostate cancer at combined MRI/MRSI (284 patients) had an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity on patients level of 82% (59-94%) and 88% (80-95%). In the low-risk group (five studies) these values were 75% (39-93%) and 91% (77-97%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of small studies suggest that MRI combined with MRSI could be a rule-in test for low-risk patients. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies and cost-effectiveness needs to be established.
Authors: Roger M Harbord; Jonathan J Deeks; Matthias Egger; Penny Whiting; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: Biostatistics Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 5.899
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Tom W J Scheenen; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Henkjan J Huisman; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Hedvig Hricak; Michael W Kattan; Darko Pucar; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Hui-Ni Chen; Jessica Spector; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian; Peter T Scardino Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-01-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jurgen J Fütterer; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Jeroen Veltman; Henkjan J Huisman; Pieter Vos; Christina A Hulsbergen-Van de Kaa; J Alfred Witjes; Paul F M Krabbe; Arend Heerschap; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nick G Costouros; Fergus V Coakley; Antonio C Westphalen; Aliya Qayyum; Benjamin M Yeh; Bonnie N Joe; John Kurhanewicz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: M Roethke; A G Anastasiadis; M Lichy; M Werner; P Wagner; S Kruck; Claus D Claussen; A Stenzl; H P Schlemmer; D Schilling Journal: World J Urol Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: L Schimmöller; M Quentin; C Arsov; R S Lanzman; A Hiester; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; D Blondin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Jurgen J Fütterer; Rajan T Gupta; Aaron Katz; Alexander Kirkham; John Kurhanewicz; Judd W Moul; Peter A Pinto; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Cary Robertson; Jean de la Rosette; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; J Stephen Jones; Osamu Ukimura; Sadhna Verma; Hessel Wijkstra; Michael Marberger Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: John V Hegde; Robert V Mulkern; Lawrence P Panych; Fiona M Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Stephan E Maier; Clare M C Tempany Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.813