| Literature DB >> 25608571 |
Sushant K Das, Xiang K Niu, Jing L Wang, Li C Zeng, Wen X Wang, Anup Bhetuwal, Han F Yang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis in order to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in the preoperative assessment of deep myometrial invasion in patients with endometrial carcinoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25608571 PMCID: PMC4331837 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-014-0032-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Figure 1Flow diagram of studies identified in the systematic review.
Description of studies included in meta-analysis
| Shen | 2008 | AJR | Pro | 21 | 33 - 82 years | DWI + T2 | 1.5T | 1,000 | NR |
| Takeuchi | 2009 | Acta Radiol | Retro | 33 | 24 - 85 years | DWI + T2 | *1.5 or 3.0T | 0 and 800 | NR |
| Lin | 2009 | Radiology | Pro | 48 | 25-80 years | DWI with Fused T2 | 3.0T | 0 and 1000 | 1 - 21 days |
| Rechichi | 2010 | Eur Radiol | Pro | 47 | 36 - 84 years | Only DWI (no referring to T2) | 1.5T | 0 and 500 | 5-35 days |
| Beddy | 2012 | Radiology | Retro | 48 | NR | DWI + T2 | 1.5T | 0 and 800 | NR |
| Seo | | J Magn Reson Imaging | Pro | 52 | 29 - 75 years | DWIBS with fused T2 | 3.0T | 1000 | 1 - 20 days |
| Hori | 2013 | Eur Radiol | Pro | 71 | 31 - 82 years | DWI + T2 Also referred to DWI with Fused T2 | 3.0T | 0 and 1000 | Less than 70 days |
Note:
The study identification (ID) numbers correspond to study numbers on the graphs in Figures 5.
Time interval is the time between DWI examination and surgical procedure to histopathologically confirm the extent of myometrial invasion.
All studies had a standard reference of histopathology i.e., all the patients in each study had pathological confirmation of endometrial cancer by Dilation and Curettage or endometrial biopsy.
All studies enrolled patients consecutively.
NR = not reported.
*Some patients were evaluated using Magnetic field strength 1.5T while others with 3.0T.
**Pro = Prospective, Retro = Retrospective.
Figure 5Summary ROC (SROC) curve for the six included studies. Numbers in brackets are 95% CIs. AUC = area under ROC curve, SENS = sensitivity, SPEC = specificity.
Criteria found and not found in selected studies according to quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool
| Patient spectrum | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Selection criteria | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Reference standard | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Time between test | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes |
| Partial verification | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Differential verification | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Incorporation | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Index test, sufficient detail | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Reference test, sufficient detail | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Test bias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Review bias | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Clinical data | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Un-interpretable data | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Subject withdrawal | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Note: yes = criterion found in given study, No = criterion not found in given study, Unclear = Insufficient information to make judgment.
Figure 2Results of Deek’s funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias. The non-significant slope indicates that no significant bias was found. ESS = effective sample size.
Meta-analysis summary statistics
| Sensitivity | 0.90 [ 0.81 - 0.95] |
| Specificity | 0.89 [ 0.79 - 0.94] |
| Positive LR | 8.08 [ 4.21 - 15.49] |
| Negative LR | 0.11 [ 0.06 - 0.22] |
| Diagnostic score | 4.26 [ 3.21 - 5.31] |
| DOR | 71.1 [ 24.96 - 202.29] |
Note: Data are summary estimates for all of the studies with all readers. Numbers in parentheses are 95% Cls. DOR = diagnostic odds ratio, LR = likelihood ratio.
Figure 3Forest plots of studies involving evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of DWI in the diagnosis of deep myometrial invasion in patient with endometrial cancer. Summary sensitivity (a) and specificity (b) of DWI for the diagnosis of deep myometrial invasion were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.95) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.94), respectively.
Figure 4Pretest probabilities (Prob) and likelihood ratios (LR). (a) With a pretest probability of deep myometrial invasion of 25% (low clinical suspicion), the posttest probability of deep myometrial invasion, given a negative DWI result (Post-Neg Probability), is 4%, which can be considered sufficient to rule out deep myometrial invasion. (b) With a pretest probability of deep myometrial invasion of 50% (worst-case scenario), the posttest probabilities of deep myometrial invasion, given positive and negative DWI results, are 89% and 10%, respectively. Thus, it is a useful test in this situation. (c) With a pretest probability of deep myometrial invasion of 75% (high clinical suspicion), the posttest probability of deep myometrial invasion, given a positive DWI result (Post-Pos Probability), is 96%; thus, a positive DWI result can be considered sufficient to rule in deep myometrial invasion.