Literature DB >> 24841276

Comparison of choline-PET/CT, MRI, SPECT, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Guohua Shen1, Houfu Deng, Shuang Hu, Zhiyun Jia.   

Abstract

Published data on the diagnosis of bone metastases of prostate cancer are conflicting and heterogeneous. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of choline-PET/CT, MRI, bone SPECT, and bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases in parents with prostate cancer. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated both on a per-patient basis and on a per-lesion basis. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were also drawn to obtain the area under curve (AUC) and Q* value. Sixteen articles consisting of 27 studies were included in the analysis. On a per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivities by using choline PET/CT, MRI, and BS were 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.96], 0.97 (95% CI: 0.91-0.99), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.83), respectively. The pooled specificities for detection of bone metastases using choline PET/CT, MRI, and BS, were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.93-1.00), 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90-0.97), and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.85), respectively. On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivities of choline PET/CT, bone SPECT, and BS were 0.84 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86-0.93), 0.59 (95% CI: 0.55-0.63), respectively. The pooled specificities were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96) for choline PET/CT, 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.90) for bone SPECT, and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.79) for BS. This meta-analysis indicated that MRI was better than choline PET/CT and BS on a per-patient basis. On a per-lesion analysis, choline PET/CT with the highest DOR and Q* was better than bone SPECT and BS for detecting bone metastases from prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24841276     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-014-1903-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  53 in total

1.  A definition of molecular imaging.

Authors:  David A Mankoff
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 2.  Bone marrow imaging.

Authors:  J B Vogler; W A Murphy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Whole-body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET.

Authors:  H E Daldrup-Link; C Franzius; T M Link; D Laukamp; J Sciuk; H Jürgens; O Schober; E J Rummeny
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Magnetic resonance imaging versus radionuclide scintigraphy in screening for bone metastases.

Authors:  Z C Traill; D Talbot; S Golding; F V Gleeson
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 5.  The role of positron emission tomography in the management of bone metastases.

Authors:  G J Cook; I Fogelman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of skeletal metastases in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  R Venkitaraman; G J R Cook; D P Dearnaley; C C Parker; V Khoo; R Eeles; R A Huddart; A Horwich; S A Sohaib
Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.735

7.  The use of F-18 choline PET in the assessment of bone metastases in prostate cancer: correlation with morphological changes on CT.

Authors:  Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Josef Hammer; Wolfgang Loidl; Christian Pirich; Ignac Fogelman; Werner Langsteger
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2009 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  Detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer by 18F fluorocholine and 18F fluoride PET-CT: a comparative study.

Authors:  Mohsen Beheshti; Reza Vali; Peter Waldenberger; Friedrich Fitz; Michael Nader; Wolfgang Loidl; Gabriele Broinger; Franz Stoiber; Ignac Foglman; Werner Langsteger
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-05-09       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Multi-field-of-view SPECT is superior to whole-body scanning for assessing metastatic bone disease in patients with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Luca Giovanella; Massimo Castellani; Sergio Suriano; Teresa Ruberto; Luca Ceriani; Luca Tagliabue; Giovanni Lucignani
Journal:  Tumori       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct

10.  Does magnetic resonance imaging of the spine have a role in the staging of prostate cancer?

Authors:  R Venkitaraman; G J R Cook; D P Dearnaley; C C Parker; R A Huddart; V Khoo; R Eeles; A Horwich; S A Sohaib
Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)       Date:  2008-11-06       Impact factor: 4.126

View more
  71 in total

1.  Comparison of hybrid 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT and 99mTc-DPD-SPECT/CT for the detection of bone metastases in prostate cancer patients: Additional value of morphologic information from low dose CT.

Authors:  Jan-Carlo Janssen; Sebastian Meißner; Nadine Woythal; Vikas Prasad; Winfried Brenner; Gerd Diederichs; Bernd Hamm; Marcus R Makowski
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  False-positive prostate cancer bone metastases on magnetic resonance imaging correctly classified on gallium-68-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography.

Authors:  Sofiullah Olayinka Abubakar; Yaw Ampem Amoako; Naima Tag; Tessa Kotze
Journal:  World J Nucl Med       Date:  2018 Oct-Dec

3.  Diagnostic role of (99)Tc(m)-MDP SPECT/CT combined SPECT/MRI Multi modality imaging for early and atypical bone metastases.

Authors:  Xiao-Liang Chen; Qian Li; Lin Cao; Shi-Xi Jiang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-12-15

4.  Multiparametric Whole-body MRI with Diffusion-weighted Imaging and ADC Mapping for the Identification of Visceral and Osseous Metastases From Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Michael A Jacobs; Katarzyna J Macura; Atif Zaheer; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Vered Stearns; Antonio C Wolff; Thorsten Feiweier; Ihab R Kamel; Richard L Wahl; Li Pan
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-04-04       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 5.  Imaging of distant metastases of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Filippo Pesapane; Marcin Czarniecki; Matteo Basilio Suter; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 3.064

Review 6.  Management of Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Recent Advances and Future Direction.

Authors:  John Esther; Benjamin L Maughan; Neysi Anderson; Neeraj Agarwal; Andrew W Hahn
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2019-02-11

Review 7.  68Ga-PSMA-PET: added value and future applications in comparison to the current use of choline-PET and mpMRI in the workup of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Simona Malaspina; Ugo De Giorgi; Jukka Kemppainen; Angelo Del Sole; Giovanni Paganelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 8.  Novel Imaging in Detection of Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Clayton P Smith; Anna Laucis; Stephanie Harmon; Esther Mena; Liza Lindenberg; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2019-03-05       Impact factor: 5.075

9.  Evaluation of Posttreatment Follow-Up of Patients With Prostate Cancer Relative to the American College of Radiology's Appropriateness Criteria.

Authors:  Jennifer S McDonald; Rickey E Carter; R Jeffrey Karnes; John D Port; Akira Kawashima; Stephanie K Carlson; Claire E Bender
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  A urologist's perspective on prostate cancer imaging: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.