Literature DB >> 26215604

Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis.

Maarten de Rooij1, Esther H J Hamoen2, J Alfred Witjes2, Jelle O Barentsz2, Maroeska M Rovers2.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Correct assessment of tumour stage is crucial for prostate cancer (PCa) management.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for local PCa staging and explore the influence of different imaging protocols. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from 2000 up to August 2014. We included studies that used MRI for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE; T3a), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI; T3b), or overall stage T3 PCa, with prostatectomy as the reference standard. Methodologic quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool by two independent reviewers. Data necessary to complete 2×2 tables were obtained, and patient, study, and imaging characteristics were extracted. Accuracy was reported for the most experienced or first reader. Results were pooled and plotted in summary receiver operating characteristics plots. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 75 studies (9796 patients) could be analysed. Pooled data for ECE (45 studies, 5681 patients), SVI (34 studies, 5677 patients), and overall stage T3 detection (38 studies, 4001 patients) showed sensitivity and specificity of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.64) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.93), 0.58 (95% CI 0.47-0.68) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97), and 0.61 (95% CI 0.54-0.67) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.91), respectively. Functional imaging in addition to T2-weighted imaging and use of higher field strengths (3 T) improved sensitivity for ECE and SVI. ECE sensitivity was not improved by endorectal coil use.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI has high specificity but poor and heterogeneous sensitivity for local PCa staging. An endorectal coil showed no additional benefit for ECE detection, but slightly improved sensitivity for SVI detection. Higher field strengths and the use of functional imaging techniques can slightly improve sensitivity. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We pooled the results from all previous studies that evaluated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of tumour growth outside the prostate. MRI is not sensitive enough to find all tumours with extraprostatic growth.
Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic accuracy; Extracapsular extension; Magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; Prostate cancer; Seminal vesicle invasion; Staging; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26215604     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  128 in total

1.  Clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging across the prostate brachytherapy workflow.

Authors:  P Blanchard; C Ménard; S J Frank
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2017-01-30       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 2.  Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Preoperative Prediction of Extracapsular Extension: Radiomics Signature Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Stage Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Shuai Ma; Huihui Xie; Huihui Wang; Jiejin Yang; Chao Han; Xiaoying Wang; Xiaodong Zhang
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  Role of MRI for the detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Richard C Wu; Amir H Lebastchi; Boris A Hadaschik; Mark Emberton; Caroline Moore; Pilar Laguna; Jurgen J Fütterer; Arvin K George
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Biparametric Prostate MRI Influencing Care Patterns in a Caribbean Population.

Authors:  Matthew S Davenport; Prasad R Shankar
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-07-31

Review 6.  [MRI of the prostate].

Authors:  D Nörenberg; O Solyanik; B Schlenker; G Magistro; B Ertl-Wagner; D A Clevert; C Stief; M F Reiser; M D'Anastasi
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Accuracy of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of unfavorable pathology in patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Hakmin Lee; Chan Kyo Kim; Byung Kwan Park; Hyun Hwan Sung; Deok Hyun Han; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Han Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus Partin tables and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer center nomogram in risk stratification of patients with prostate cancer referred to external beam radiation therapy.

Authors:  Rossano Girometti; Martina Pancot; Marco Andrea Signor; Martina Urbani; Luca Balestreri; Chiara Zuiani
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2018-05-12       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 9.  Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided Focal Prostate Ablation.

Authors:  Sherif G Nour
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.513

Review 10.  Restriction spectrum imaging: An evolving imaging biomarker in prostate MRI.

Authors:  Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 4.813

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.