BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Bladder cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in patients presenting with haematuria. Early detection is crucial for improving patient prognosis. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the detection validity (sensitivity and specificity) of virtual cystoscopy (VC) and ultrasonography (US). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating diagnosis validity of VC and US between January 1966 and December 2009. Meta-analysis methods were used to pool sensitivity and specificity and to construct a summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies that included 3084 patients who fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria were considered for inclusion in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for bladder cancer detection using CT virtual cystoscopy (CTVC), MR virtual cystoscopy (MRVC) and US was 0.939 (95% CI, 0.919-0.956), 0.908 (95% CI, 0.827-0.959) and 0.779 (95% CI, 0.744-0.812), respectively. The pooled specificity for bladder cancer detection using CTVC, MRVC and US was 0.981 (95% CI, 0.973-0.988), 0.948 (95% CI, 0.884-0.983) and 0.962 (95% CI, 0.953-0.969), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) estimate for CTVC (604.22) were significantly higher than for MRVC (144.35, P<0.001) and US (72.472, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results showed that both CTVC and MRVC are better imaging methods for diagnosing bladder cancer than US. CTVC has higher diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity and DOR) for the detection of bladder cancer than either MRCT or US.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Bladder cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in patients presenting with haematuria. Early detection is crucial for improving patient prognosis. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the detection validity (sensitivity and specificity) of virtual cystoscopy (VC) and ultrasonography (US). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating diagnosis validity of VC and US between January 1966 and December 2009. Meta-analysis methods were used to pool sensitivity and specificity and to construct a summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies that included 3084 patients who fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria were considered for inclusion in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity for bladder cancer detection using CT virtual cystoscopy (CTVC), MR virtual cystoscopy (MRVC) and US was 0.939 (95% CI, 0.919-0.956), 0.908 (95% CI, 0.827-0.959) and 0.779 (95% CI, 0.744-0.812), respectively. The pooled specificity for bladder cancer detection using CTVC, MRVC and US was 0.981 (95% CI, 0.973-0.988), 0.948 (95% CI, 0.884-0.983) and 0.962 (95% CI, 0.953-0.969), respectively. The pooled diagnostic odd ratio (DOR) estimate for CTVC (604.22) were significantly higher than for MRVC (144.35, P<0.001) and US (72.472, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results showed that both CTVC and MRVC are better imaging methods for diagnosing bladder cancer than US. CTVC has higher diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity and DOR) for the detection of bladder cancer than either MRCT or US.
Authors: Laimonis Kavalieris; Paul J O'Sullivan; James M Suttie; Brent K Pownall; Peter J Gilling; Christophe Chemasle; David G Darling Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Christian B van der Pol; Matthew D F McInnes; William Petrcich; Adam S Tunis; Ramez Hanna Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: W Annefloor van Enst; Eleanor Ochodo; Rob J P M Scholten; Lotty Hooft; Mariska M Leeflang Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.615