Bin Li1, Qiong Li2, Wei Nie3, Shiyuan Liu4. 1. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China. Electronic address: lllb146@163.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China. 3. Department of Respiratory Disease, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200003, China. Electronic address: lsy20112077@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI) technique in detection of primary and metastatic malignancies compared with that of whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (WB-PET/CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Search Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library database from January 1984 to July 2013 for studies comparing WB-DWI with WB-PET/CT for detection of primary and metastatic malignancies. Methodological quality was assessed by the quality assessment of diagnostic studies (QUADAS) instrument. Sensitivities, specificities, predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and areas under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. Potential threshold effect, heterogeneity and publication bias were investigated. RESULT: Thirteen eligible studies were included, with a total of 1067 patients. There was no significant threshold effect. WB-DWI had a similar AUC (0.966 (95% CI, 0.940-0.992) versus 0.984 (95% CI, 0.965-0.999)) with WB-PET/CT. No significant difference was detected between AUC of WB-DWI and WB-PET/CT. WB-DWI had a pooled sensitivity of 0.897 (95% CI, 0.876-0.916) and a pooled specificity of 0.954 (95% CI, 0.944-0.962). WB-PET/CT had a pooled sensitivity of 0.895 (95% CI, 0.865-0.920) and a pooled specificity of 0.975 (95% CI, 0.966-0.981). Heterogeneity was found to stem primarily from data type (per lesion versus per patient), MR sequence (DWIBS only and DWIBS with other sequence), and primary lesion type (single type and multiple type). The Deeks's funnel plots suggested the absence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: WB-DWI has similar, good diagnostic performance for the detection of primary and metastatic malignancies compared with WB-PET/CT. DWIBS with other MR sequences could further improve the diagnostic performance. More high-quality studies regarding comparison of WB-DWI and WB-PET/CT and combination of them in detecting malignancies are still needed to be conducted.
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (WB-DWI) technique in detection of primary and metastatic malignancies compared with that of whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (WB-PET/CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Search Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library database from January 1984 to July 2013 for studies comparing WB-DWI with WB-PET/CT for detection of primary and metastatic malignancies. Methodological quality was assessed by the quality assessment of diagnostic studies (QUADAS) instrument. Sensitivities, specificities, predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and areas under the summary receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated. Potential threshold effect, heterogeneity and publication bias were investigated. RESULT: Thirteen eligible studies were included, with a total of 1067 patients. There was no significant threshold effect. WB-DWI had a similar AUC (0.966 (95% CI, 0.940-0.992) versus 0.984 (95% CI, 0.965-0.999)) with WB-PET/CT. No significant difference was detected between AUC of WB-DWI and WB-PET/CT. WB-DWI had a pooled sensitivity of 0.897 (95% CI, 0.876-0.916) and a pooled specificity of 0.954 (95% CI, 0.944-0.962). WB-PET/CT had a pooled sensitivity of 0.895 (95% CI, 0.865-0.920) and a pooled specificity of 0.975 (95% CI, 0.966-0.981). Heterogeneity was found to stem primarily from data type (per lesion versus per patient), MR sequence (DWIBS only and DWIBS with other sequence), and primary lesion type (single type and multiple type). The Deeks's funnel plots suggested the absence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: WB-DWI has similar, good diagnostic performance for the detection of primary and metastatic malignancies compared with WB-PET/CT. DWIBS with other MR sequences could further improve the diagnostic performance. More high-quality studies regarding comparison of WB-DWI and WB-PET/CT and combination of them in detecting malignancies are still needed to be conducted.
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
Authors: General Leung; Anish Kirpalani; Stephen G Szeto; Maya Deeb; Warren Foltz; Craig A Simmons; Darren A Yuen Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Sileny N Han; Frédéric Amant; Katrijn Michielsen; Frederik De Keyzer; Steffen Fieuws; Kristel Van Calsteren; Raphaëla C Dresen; Mina Mhallem Gziri; Vincent Vandecaveye Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Suvi Rautiainen; Mervi Könönen; Reijo Sironen; Amro Masarwah; Mazen Sudah; Juhana Hakumäki; Ritva Vanninen; Anna Sutela Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240