I van 't Sant1,2, M P Engbersen3,4, P A Bhairosing5, D M J Lambregts3, R G H Beets-Tan3,4, W J van Driel6, A G J Aalbers7, N F M Kok7, M J Lahaye3. 1. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006, BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. i.jansen@nki.nl. 2. GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. i.jansen@nki.nl. 3. Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006, BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. GROW School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Scientific Information Service, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Gynaecology, CGOA location The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006, BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO Box 90203, 1006, BE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Detection of peritoneal metastases (PM) is key in the staging and management of gastrointestinal and ovarian cancer patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic performance of CT, PET(CT), and (DW)MRI in detecting PM. METHODS: A literature search in Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Scopus was performed (January 1997-May 2018) to identify studies reporting on the accuracy of imaging PM in the diagnostic workup of gastrointestinal or ovarian cancers. Inclusion criteria were region-based or patient-based studies comprising > 15 patients, surgery/histology/radiological follow-up as a reference standard, and sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 contingency table. Two observers performed data extraction. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model and hierarchical summary operating curves (HSROC) were generated. RESULTS: Of 3457 citations retrieved, twenty-four articles met all inclusion criteria. Thirty-seven datasets could be extracted for analysis including 20 for CT, 10 for PET(CT), and 7 for (DW)MRI. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR for the detection of PM for region-based studies for CT were 68% (CI, 46-84%), 88%(CI, 81-93%), and 15.9 (CI, 4.4-58.0) respectively; 80% (CI, 57-92%), 90% (CI, 80-96%), and 36.5 (CI, 6.7-199.5) for PET(CT), respectively; 92% (CI, 84-96%), 85% (CI, 78-91%), 63.3 (CI, 31.5-127.3) for (DW)MRI. In the patient-based group, not enough studies were included to make a pooled analysis for (DW)MRI and PET(CT). CONCLUSION: (DW)MRI and PET(CT) showed comparable diagnostic performance for the detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and gastrointestinal cancer patients. Since MRI is more widely available than PET(CT) in clinical practice, this potentially is the imaging method of choice in most centers in the future. KEY POINTS: • Detection of peritoneal metastases plays an important role in the accurate staging of cancer patients, however, there is no accepted reference standard for the imaging of peritoneal metastases • This meta-analysis shows that (DW)MRI provided the highest sensitivity for the detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and gastrointestinal cancer patients • Although (DW)MRI and PET(CT) show a comparable overall diagnostic performance, (DW)MRI seems to be the imaging method of choice since it is more available in daily practice than PET(CT).
PURPOSE: Detection of peritoneal metastases (PM) is key in the staging and management of gastrointestinal and ovarian cancerpatients. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the diagnostic performance of CT, PET(CT), and (DW)MRI in detecting PM. METHODS: A literature search in Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), and Scopus was performed (January 1997-May 2018) to identify studies reporting on the accuracy of imaging PM in the diagnostic workup of gastrointestinal or ovarian cancers. Inclusion criteria were region-based or patient-based studies comprising > 15 patients, surgery/histology/radiological follow-up as a reference standard, and sufficient data to construct a 2 × 2 contingency table. Two observers performed data extraction. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model and hierarchical summary operating curves (HSROC) were generated. RESULTS: Of 3457 citations retrieved, twenty-four articles met all inclusion criteria. Thirty-seven datasets could be extracted for analysis including 20 for CT, 10 for PET(CT), and 7 for (DW)MRI. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR for the detection of PM for region-based studies for CT were 68% (CI, 46-84%), 88%(CI, 81-93%), and 15.9 (CI, 4.4-58.0) respectively; 80% (CI, 57-92%), 90% (CI, 80-96%), and 36.5 (CI, 6.7-199.5) for PET(CT), respectively; 92% (CI, 84-96%), 85% (CI, 78-91%), 63.3 (CI, 31.5-127.3) for (DW)MRI. In the patient-based group, not enough studies were included to make a pooled analysis for (DW)MRI and PET(CT). CONCLUSION: (DW)MRI and PET(CT) showed comparable diagnostic performance for the detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and gastrointestinal cancerpatients. Since MRI is more widely available than PET(CT) in clinical practice, this potentially is the imaging method of choice in most centers in the future. KEY POINTS: • Detection of peritoneal metastases plays an important role in the accurate staging of cancerpatients, however, there is no accepted reference standard for the imaging of peritoneal metastases • This meta-analysis shows that (DW)MRI provided the highest sensitivity for the detection of peritoneal metastases in ovarian and gastrointestinal cancerpatients • Although (DW)MRI and PET(CT) show a comparable overall diagnostic performance, (DW)MRI seems to be the imaging method of choice since it is more available in daily practice than PET(CT).
Authors: Beate Rau; Linda Feldbrügge; Felix Gronau; Miguel Enrique Alberto Vilchez; Peter Thuss-Patience; Pierre Emmanuel Bonnot; Olivier Glehen Journal: Visc Med Date: 2022-02-23
Authors: Jack W Power; Philip J Dempsey; Andrew Yates; Helen Fenlon; Jurgen Mulsow; Conor Shields; Carmel G Cronin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.629