Mou Li1, Zixing Huang1, Haopeng Yu1, Yi Wang1, Yongchang Zhang1, Bin Song2. 1. Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. 2. Department of Radiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. Electronic address: songlab_radiology@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI using various radiotracers with multiparametric (mp) MRI for detection of primary prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A systematic literature search up to January 2019 was performed to identify studies that evaluated the diagnostic value of PET/MRI and mpMRI for detection of PCa in the same patient cohorts and had sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables for true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), false-negative (FN), and true-negative (TN) results. The quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, and pooled sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPE) were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curves (AUCs) were used to compare the performances of PET/MRI and mpMRI. RESULTS: We identified 9 eligible studies that included a total of 353 patients. PET/MRI had a SEN of 0.783 (95% CI, 0.758-0.807) and a SPE of 0.899 (95% CI, 0.879-0.917), and mpMRI had a SEN of 0.603 (95% CI, 0.574-0.631) and a SPE of 0.887 (95% CI, 0.866-0.906). PET/MRI had a higher AUC than mpMRI (0.9311, 95% CI, 0.8990-0.9632 vs. 0.8403, 95% CI, 0.7864-0.8942; P = 0.0036). There was no notable publication bias, but there was medium heterogeneity in outcomes. The meta-regression analysis showed the major potential cause of heterogeneity was the use of region-based rather than lesion-based analysis. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI has very good diagnostic performance and outperforms mpMRI for the diagnosis of primary PCa.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI using various radiotracers with multiparametric (mp) MRI for detection of primary prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A systematic literature search up to January 2019 was performed to identify studies that evaluated the diagnostic value of PET/MRI and mpMRI for detection of PCa in the same patient cohorts and had sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables for true-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), false-negative (FN), and true-negative (TN) results. The quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, and pooled sensitivity (SEN) and specificity (SPE) were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curves (AUCs) were used to compare the performances of PET/MRI and mpMRI. RESULTS: We identified 9 eligible studies that included a total of 353 patients. PET/MRI had a SEN of 0.783 (95% CI, 0.758-0.807) and a SPE of 0.899 (95% CI, 0.879-0.917), and mpMRI had a SEN of 0.603 (95% CI, 0.574-0.631) and a SPE of 0.887 (95% CI, 0.866-0.906). PET/MRI had a higher AUC than mpMRI (0.9311, 95% CI, 0.8990-0.9632 vs. 0.8403, 95% CI, 0.7864-0.8942; P = 0.0036). There was no notable publication bias, but there was medium heterogeneity in outcomes. The meta-regression analysis showed the major potential cause of heterogeneity was the use of region-based rather than lesion-based analysis. CONCLUSION: PET/MRI has very good diagnostic performance and outperforms mpMRI for the diagnosis of primary PCa.
Authors: Daniela A Ferraro; Andreas M Hötker; Olivio F Donati; Irene A Burger; Anton S Becker; Iliana Mebert; Riccardo Laudicella; Anka Baltensperger; Niels J Rupp; Jan H Rueschoff; Julian Müller; Ashkan Mortezavi; Marcelo T Sapienza; Daniel Eberli Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2022-07-18
Authors: Ángel Borque-Fernando; Luis Mariano Esteban; Ana Celma; Sarai Roche; Jacques Planas; Lucas Regis; Inés de Torres; Maria Eugenia Semidey; Enrique Trilla; Juan Morote Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Yi Zhao; Benjamin S Simpson; Naomi Morka; Alex Freeman; Alex Kirkham; Daniel Kelly; Hayley C Whitaker; Mark Emberton; Joseph M Norris Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Vy Tran; Anne Hong; Tom Sutherland; Kim Taubman; Su-Faye Lee; Daniel Lenaghan; Kapil Sethi; Niall M Corcoran; Nathan Lawrentschuk; H Woo; Lisa Tarlinton; Damien Bolton; Tim Spelman; Lauren Thomas; Russell Booth; Justin Hegarty; Elisa Perry; Lih-Ming Wong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Felix G Gassert; Johannes Rübenthaler; Clemens C Cyran; Johann S Rink; Vincent Schwarze; Johanna Luitjens; Florian T Gassert; Marcus R Makowski; Stefan O Schoenberg; Marius E Mayerhoefer; Dietmar Tamandl; Matthias F Froelich Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 9.236