James Toft1, William J Hadden2, Jerome M Laurence3, Vincent Lam4, Lawrence Yuen4, Anna Janssen5, Henry Pleass4. 1. Nepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: jtof4722@uni.sydney.edu.au. 2. Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Australia. 3. Royal Prince Alfred Institute of Academic Surgery, University of Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Surgery, Westmead Hospital, University of Sydney, Australia. 5. Research in Implementation Science and eHealth, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer, primarily pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), accounts for 2.4% of cancer diagnoses and 5.8% of cancer death annually. Early diagnoses can improve 5-year survival in PDAC. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy values for MRI, CT, PET&PET/CT, EUS and transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) in the diagnosis of PDAC. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies reporting sensitivity, specificity and/or diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of PDAC with MRI, CT, PET, EUS or TAUS. Proportional meta-analysis was performed for each modality. RESULTS: A total of 5399 patients, 3567 with PDAC, from 52 studies were included. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were 93% (95% CI=88-96), 89% (95% CI=82-94) and 90% (95% CI=86-94) for MRI; 90% (95% CI=87-93), 87% (95% CI=79-93) and 89% (95% CI=85-93) for CT; 89% (95% CI=85-93), 70% (95% CI=54-84) and 84% (95% CI=79-89) for PET; 91% (95% CI=87-94), 86% (95% CI=81-91) and 89% (95% CI=87-92) for EUS; and 88% (95% CI=86-90), 94% (95% CI=87-98) and 91% (95% C=87-93) for TAUS. CONCLUSION: This review concludes all modalities, except for PET, are equivalent within 95% confidence intervals for the diagnosis of PDAC.
BACKGROUND:Pancreatic cancer, primarily pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), accounts for 2.4% of cancer diagnoses and 5.8% of cancer death annually. Early diagnoses can improve 5-year survival in PDAC. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy values for MRI, CT, PET&PET/CT, EUS and transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) in the diagnosis of PDAC. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies reporting sensitivity, specificity and/or diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of PDAC with MRI, CT, PET, EUS or TAUS. Proportional meta-analysis was performed for each modality. RESULTS: A total of 5399 patients, 3567 with PDAC, from 52 studies were included. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were 93% (95% CI=88-96), 89% (95% CI=82-94) and 90% (95% CI=86-94) for MRI; 90% (95% CI=87-93), 87% (95% CI=79-93) and 89% (95% CI=85-93) for CT; 89% (95% CI=85-93), 70% (95% CI=54-84) and 84% (95% CI=79-89) for PET; 91% (95% CI=87-94), 86% (95% CI=81-91) and 89% (95% CI=87-92) for EUS; and 88% (95% CI=86-90), 94% (95% CI=87-98) and 91% (95% C=87-93) for TAUS. CONCLUSION: This review concludes all modalities, except for PET, are equivalent within 95% confidence intervals for the diagnosis of PDAC.
Authors: Songqi Gao; Jingcan Qin; Olga Sergeeva; Maxim Sergeev; Peter Qiao; Sarah Roelle; Norbert Avril; Zhenghong Lee; Yajuan Li; Zhengrong Lu Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-10-15
Authors: E Martin-Perez; J E Domínguez-Muñoz; F Botella-Romero; L Cerezo; F Matute Teresa; T Serrano; R Vera Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.405