Hui Wu1,2, Ting Xu3, Xiao Wang1,2, Yong Bo Yu1,2, Zhong Yuan Fan1,2, Dan Xia Li1,2, Lei Luo1,2, Xue Cheng Yang1,2, Wei Jiao1,4, Hai Tao Niu5,6. 1. Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Qingdao, China. 3. Department of Geratology, The 971th Hospital of PLA, Qingdao, China. 4. Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Qingdao, China. jiaowei3929@163.com. 5. Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China. niuht0532@126.com. 6. Key Laboratory of Urinary System Diseases, Qingdao, China. niuht0532@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficiency of 68Gallium labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging the lymph node metastases (LNMs) in the prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A broad search of scientific databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (updated prior to November 1st, 2018) was conducted systematically by two reviewers. In this paper, we evaluated the methodological quality of each included article independently and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal the summary of the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET and MRI in properly identifying LNMs of intermediate- and/or high-risk prostate cancer. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible articles comprising 1,597 patients were included. For LNMs detection, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of 68Ga-PSMA PET were 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.79) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97), respectively, while the corresponding values of MRI were 0.41 (95% CI: 0.26-0.57) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95). The area under the symmetric receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve for 68Ga-PSMA PET and MRI were 0.92 and 0.83, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate- or high-risk pre-treatment prostate cancer, 68Ga-PSMA PET had a higher sensitivity and a slightly different specificity in probing the LNMs when comparing with MRI. Moreover, the area under the SROC curve indicated that 68Ga-PSMA PET was a more effective weapon for predicting the LNMs prior to radical surgery.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficiency of 68Gallium labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (68Ga-PSMA PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging the lymph node metastases (LNMs) in the prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A broad search of scientific databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database (updated prior to November 1st, 2018) was conducted systematically by two reviewers. In this paper, we evaluated the methodological quality of each included article independently and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reveal the summary of the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET and MRI in properly identifying LNMs of intermediate- and/or high-risk prostate cancer. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible articles comprising 1,597 patients were included. For LNMs detection, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of 68Ga-PSMA PET were 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.79) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-0.97), respectively, while the corresponding values of MRI were 0.41 (95% CI: 0.26-0.57) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.95). The area under the symmetric receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve for 68Ga-PSMA PET and MRI were 0.92 and 0.83, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In intermediate- or high-risk pre-treatment prostate cancer, 68Ga-PSMA PET had a higher sensitivity and a slightly different specificity in probing the LNMs when comparing with MRI. Moreover, the area under the SROC curve indicated that 68Ga-PSMA PET was a more effective weapon for predicting the LNMs prior to radical surgery.
Authors: Sui Wai Ling; Anouk C de Jong; Ivo G Schoots; Kazem Nasserinejad; Martijn B Busstra; Astrid A M van der Veldt; Tessa Brabander Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-09-28
Authors: B H E Jansen; Y J L Bodar; G J C Zwezerijnen; D Meijer; J P van der Voorn; J A Nieuwenhuijzen; M Wondergem; T A Roeleveld; R Boellaard; O S Hoekstra; R J A van Moorselaar; D E Oprea-Lager; A N Vis Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 9.236