Cargando…

Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer. Methods: Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to May 31, 2018, with language restricted to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bai, Koudi, Sun, Yuan, Li, Wei, Zhang, Lanlan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6489658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114355
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S191738
_version_ 1783414861490814976
author Bai, Koudi
Sun, Yuan
Li, Wei
Zhang, Lanlan
author_facet Bai, Koudi
Sun, Yuan
Li, Wei
Zhang, Lanlan
author_sort Bai, Koudi
collection PubMed
description Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer. Methods: Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to May 31, 2018, with language restricted to English. All studies concerning multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) with ADC for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE, T3a) and/or extraprostatic extension (EPE, overall stage of T3) were identified by two reviewers independently, and quality of included studies was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. True positive, false positive, false negative and true negative of each study were extracted to reconstruct the 2×2 tables for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated with bivariate model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model, then presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was evaluated with Deeks funnel. Results: A total of 18 studies were included, with 6 involved ECE and 12 for EPE. Pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 76.5–83.9%) with specificity of 69.1% (95% CI 62.3–75.2%). Multiple subgroup analyses showed that if ADC and length of capsular contact are regarded as independent predictors, pooled sensitivity was 85% (95% CI 77–90%) and 81.1% (95% CI 76.0–85.3%), with specificity of 70.8% (95% CI 56.3–82.0%) and 66.6% (95% CI 57.6–74.5%), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated that there was no substantially significant difference in types of coil, magnet field strength (1.5T versus 3.0T), and analysis method (per-lesion versus per-patient). Conclusion: By introducing ADC to MRI, we could obtain favorable sensitivity for diagnostic performance of EPE, but with a little decreased specificity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6489658
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64896582019-05-21 Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis Bai, Koudi Sun, Yuan Li, Wei Zhang, Lanlan Cancer Manag Res Review Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer. Methods: Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to May 31, 2018, with language restricted to English. All studies concerning multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) with ADC for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE, T3a) and/or extraprostatic extension (EPE, overall stage of T3) were identified by two reviewers independently, and quality of included studies was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. True positive, false positive, false negative and true negative of each study were extracted to reconstruct the 2×2 tables for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated with bivariate model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model, then presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was evaluated with Deeks funnel. Results: A total of 18 studies were included, with 6 involved ECE and 12 for EPE. Pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 76.5–83.9%) with specificity of 69.1% (95% CI 62.3–75.2%). Multiple subgroup analyses showed that if ADC and length of capsular contact are regarded as independent predictors, pooled sensitivity was 85% (95% CI 77–90%) and 81.1% (95% CI 76.0–85.3%), with specificity of 70.8% (95% CI 56.3–82.0%) and 66.6% (95% CI 57.6–74.5%), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated that there was no substantially significant difference in types of coil, magnet field strength (1.5T versus 3.0T), and analysis method (per-lesion versus per-patient). Conclusion: By introducing ADC to MRI, we could obtain favorable sensitivity for diagnostic performance of EPE, but with a little decreased specificity. Dove 2019-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6489658/ /pubmed/31114355 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S191738 Text en © 2019 Bai et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Bai, Koudi
Sun, Yuan
Li, Wei
Zhang, Lanlan
Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
title Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
title_full Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
title_fullStr Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
title_short Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
title_sort apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6489658/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31114355
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S191738
work_keys_str_mv AT baikoudi apparentdiffusioncoefficientinextraprostaticextensionofprostatecancerasystematicreviewanddiagnosticmetaanalysis
AT sunyuan apparentdiffusioncoefficientinextraprostaticextensionofprostatecancerasystematicreviewanddiagnosticmetaanalysis
AT liwei apparentdiffusioncoefficientinextraprostaticextensionofprostatecancerasystematicreviewanddiagnosticmetaanalysis
AT zhanglanlan apparentdiffusioncoefficientinextraprostaticextensionofprostatecancerasystematicreviewanddiagnosticmetaanalysis