Jack Crozier1, Nathan Papa2,3, Marlon Perera2,3, Brian Ngo2, Damien Bolton2,3, Shomik Sengupta2,3, Nathan Lawrentschuk2,3,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. jackacrozier@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. 3. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. 4. Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The detection of lymph node metastases in bladder cancer has a significant impact on treatment decisions. Multiple imaging modalities are available to clinicians including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and positron emission tomography. We aimed to investigate the utility of alternate imaging modalities on pre-cystectomy imaging in bladder cancer for the detection of lymph node metastases. METHODS: We performed systematic search of Web of Science (including MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane libraries in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing lymph node imaging findings with final histopathology were included in our analysis. Sensitivity and specificity data were quantified using patient-based analysis. A true positive was defined as a node-positive patient on imaging and node positive on histopathology. Meta-analysis of studies was performed using a mixed-effects, hierarchical logistic regression model. RESULTS: Our systematic search identified 35 articles suitable for inclusion. MRI and PET have a higher sensitivity than CT while the specificity of all modalities was similar. The summary MRI sensitivity = 0.60 (95% CI 0.44-0.74) and specificity = 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-0.96). Summary PET/CT sensitivity = 0.56 (95% CI 0.49-0.63) and specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95). Summary CT sensitivity = 0.40 (95% CI 0.33-0.49) and specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95). CONCLUSION: MRI and PET/CT provides superior sensitivity compared to CT for detection of positive lymph nodes in bladder cancer prior to cystectomy. There is variability in the accuracy that current imaging modalities achieve across different studies. A number of other factors impact on detection accuracy and these must be considered.
PURPOSE: The detection of lymph node metastases in bladder cancer has a significant impact on treatment decisions. Multiple imaging modalities are available to clinicians including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and positron emission tomography. We aimed to investigate the utility of alternate imaging modalities on pre-cystectomy imaging in bladder cancer for the detection of lymph node metastases. METHODS: We performed systematic search of Web of Science (including MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane libraries in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing lymph node imaging findings with final histopathology were included in our analysis. Sensitivity and specificity data were quantified using patient-based analysis. A true positive was defined as a node-positive patient on imaging and node positive on histopathology. Meta-analysis of studies was performed using a mixed-effects, hierarchical logistic regression model. RESULTS: Our systematic search identified 35 articles suitable for inclusion. MRI and PET have a higher sensitivity than CT while the specificity of all modalities was similar. The summary MRI sensitivity = 0.60 (95% CI 0.44-0.74) and specificity = 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-0.96). Summary PET/CT sensitivity = 0.56 (95% CI 0.49-0.63) and specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95). Summary CT sensitivity = 0.40 (95% CI 0.33-0.49) and specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.95). CONCLUSION: MRI and PET/CT provides superior sensitivity compared to CT for detection of positive lymph nodes in bladder cancer prior to cystectomy. There is variability in the accuracy that current imaging modalities achieve across different studies. A number of other factors impact on detection accuracy and these must be considered.
Authors: Roger M Harbord; Jonathan J Deeks; Matthias Egger; Penny Whiting; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: Biostatistics Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 5.899
Authors: Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Hubert Kübler; Katharina Opercan; Stefan Schmidt; Ken Herrmann; Jens Stollfuss; Gregor Weirich; Bernhard Haller; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Bernd J Krause; Uwe Treiber Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Pascal Zehnder; Urs E Studer; Eila C Skinner; Ryan P Dorin; Jie Cai; Beat Roth; Gus Miranda; Frédéric Birkhäuser; John Stein; Fiona C Burkhard; Sia Daneshmand; George N Thalmann; Inderbir S Gill; Donald G Skinner Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: F Lista; G Andrés; F Cáceres; F Ramón de Fata; J M Rodríguez-Barbero; J C Angulo Journal: Actas Urol Esp Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 0.994
Authors: Ayman Soubra; Daniel Hayward; Philipp Dahm; Robert Goldfarb; Jerry Froehlich; Gautam Jha; Badrinath R Konety Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Giovanni Barchetti; Giuseppe Simone; Isabella Ceravolo; Vincenzo Salvo; Riccardo Campa; Francesco Del Giudice; Ettore De Berardinis; Dorelsa Buccilli; Carlo Catalano; Michele Gallucci; James W F Catto; Valeria Panebianco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: V Hechler; M Rink; D Beyersdorff; M Beer; A J Beer; V Panebianco; M Pecoraro; C Bolenz; G Salomon Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Jonas Busch; Stefanie Schmidt; Peter Albers; Julia Heinzelbecker; Sabine Kliesch; Julia Lackner; David Pfister; Christian Ruf; Christian Winter; Friedemann Zengerling; Dirk Beyersdorff Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Vincenzo Cuccurullo; Giuseppe Danilo Di Stasio; Francesco Manti; Pierpaolo Arcuri; Rocco Damiano; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-11
Authors: Alexander G Zhegalik; Sergey L Polyakov; Alexander I Rolevich; Alexander N Volkov; Alexander A Minich; Vladimir Ju Vasilevich; Andrey A Mokhort; Sergey A Krasny; Oleg G Sukonko Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2020-03-23
Authors: Mehdi Kardoust Parizi; Dmitry Enikeev; Petr V Glybochko; Veronika Seebacher; Florian Janisch; Harun Fajkovic; Piotr L Chłosta; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 4.226