Cargando…

Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging accuracy for diagnosis of oral cancer

OBJECTIVE: To establish the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an auxiliary means for the diagnosis of oral cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: An exhaustive search of publications from 1986 to 2016 was performed of Medline, Embase and Cochrane (and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moreira, Marcelo Aldrighi, Lessa, Luiza Silveira, Bortoli, Francieli Regina, Lopes, Abigail, Xavier, Eduardo Picolo, Ceretta, Renan Antonio, Sônego, Fernanda Guglielmi Faustini, Tomasi, Cristiane Damiani, Pires, Patricia Duarte Simões, Ceretta, Luciane Bisognin, Perry, Ingrid Dalira Schweigert, Waleska Simões, Priscyla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5443513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28542622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177462
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To establish the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an auxiliary means for the diagnosis of oral cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: An exhaustive search of publications from 1986 to 2016 was performed of Medline, Embase and Cochrane (and related databases), including grey literature. Primary diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed oral cancer (target condition) using MRI (index test) were included. Diagnostic threshold, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed. A meta-analysis was performed using Meta-DiSc® v. 1.4 software. RESULTS: A total of 24 primary studies were assessed, comprising 1,403 oral cancer lesions. Nine studies used diffusion-weighted MRI, with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 30.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.7–74.3) and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.917 (95% CI: 0.915–0.918); seven studies used dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, with a DOR of 48.1 (95%CI: 22.4–103.2) and AUC of 0.936 (95% CI: 0.934–0.937); and 13 studies used traditional MRI, with a DOR of 23.9 (95%CI: 13.2–43.3) and AUC of 0.894 (95% CI: 0.894–0.895). Meta-regression analysis indicated that the magnetic field strength may have influenced the heterogeneity of the results obtained (p = 0.0233) using traditional MRI. Sensitivity analysis revealed a discrete reduction of inconsistency in some subgroups. CONCLUSION: The three types of MRI assessed exhibited satisfactory accuracy compared to biopsy. Considering the relevance of early treatment and screening and that better health care results in improved survival rates and quality of life for oral cancer patients, we suggest the use of MRI as a part of the pre-treatment and monitoring protocol at public health services.