Literature DB >> 21618333

Diagnostic value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lian-Ming Wu1, Hai-Yan Gu, Jasmine Zheng, Xiao Xu, Lin-Hua Lin, Xia Deng, Wei Zhang, Jian-Rong Xu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the overall diagnostic accuracy of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) in detecting bone metastases with a meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancerlit, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from January 1995 to September 2010 for studies evaluating the accuracy of WB-MRI in detecting bone metastases. Histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months was assessed. Meta-analysis methods were used to pool sensitivity and specificity and to construct summary receiver-operating characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 11 studies with 495 patients who fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria were considered for the analysis. No publication bias was found. WB-MRI had a pooled sensitivity of 0.899 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.845-0.939) and a pooled specificity of 0.918 (95% CI, 0.882-0.946). The subgroup without diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) positive results had higher pooled specificity 0.961 (95% CI, 0.922-0.984) than the subgroup with DWI (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: WB-MRI was an accurate, cost-effective tool in detecting bone metastases. WB-MRI without DWI may improve the specificity of detecting bone metastases. DWI seems to be a sensitive but rather unspecific modality for the detection of bone metastatic disease. High-quality prospective studies regarding WB-MRI in detecting bone metastases still need to be conducted.
Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21618333     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22608

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  30 in total

Review 1.  Diffusion-weighted imaging in musculoskeletal radiology-clinical applications and future directions.

Authors:  Nicholas Bhojwani; Peter Szpakowski; Sasan Partovi; Martin H Maurer; Ulrich Grosse; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Lisa Zipp-Partovi; Nathan Fergus; Christos Kosmas; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mark R Robbin
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2015-10

2.  Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Anne Miles; Stephen Morris; Laura Quinn; Caroline S Clarke; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Dow-Mu Koh; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Anwar Padhani; Shonit Punwani; Andrea Rockall; Steve Halligan
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Role of whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI in detecting bone metastasis.

Authors:  Riccardo Del Vescovo; Giulia Frauenfelder; Francesco Giurazza; Claudia Lucia Piccolo; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Rosario Francesco Grasso; Emiliano Schena; Bruno Beomonte Zobel
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Whole-body MRI to assess bone involvement in prostate cancer and multiple myeloma: comparison of the diagnostic accuracies of the T1, short tau inversion recovery (STIR), and high b-values diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences.

Authors:  Ahmed Larbi; Patrick Omoumi; Vassiliki Pasoglou; Nicolas Michoux; Perrine Triqueneaux; Bertrand Tombal; Catherine Cyteval; Frédéric E Lecouvet
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Diagnostic accuracy and agreement between whole-body diffusion MRI and bone scintigraphy in detecting bone metastases.

Authors:  A Stecco; M Lombardi; L Leva; M Brambilla; E Negru; S Delli Passeri; A Carriero
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Bone metastases from prostate, breast and multiple myeloma: differences in lesion conspicuity at short-tau inversion recovery and diffusion-weighted MRI.

Authors:  T Pearce; S Philip; J Brown; D M Koh; P R Burn
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  The diagnostic imaging of bone metastases.

Authors:  Walter Heindel; Raphael Gübitz; Volker Vieth; Matthias Weckesser; Otmar Schober; Michael Schäfers
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 5.594

8.  Distinguishing imaging features between spinal hyperplastic hematopoietic bone marrow and bone metastasis.

Authors:  Y Shigematsu; T Hirai; K Kawanaka; S Shiraishi; M Yoshida; M Kitajima; H Uetani; M Azuma; Y Iryo; Y Yamashita
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 9.  [Pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms].

Authors:  K Beiderwellen; A Sabet; T C Lauenstein; H Lahner; T D Poeppel
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 0.635

10.  Effect of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on bone marrow: evaluation by intravoxel incoherent motion and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Fabio Minutoli; Stefano Pergolizzi; Alfredo Blandino; Enricomaria Mormina; Ernesto Amato; Michele Gaeta
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.