Cargando…

Diagnostic value of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI in staging prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in the staging of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: English-language studies on the diagnostic accuracy of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging published through May 2020 were searched for in relevant databases. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Virarkar, Mayur, Szklaruk, Janio, Diab, Radwan, Bassett, Roland, Bhosale, Priya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9373864/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35979151
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.118685
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in the staging of prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: English-language studies on the diagnostic accuracy of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging published through May 2020 were searched for in relevant databases. The focus was on studies in which both 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI were performed in the study population, to reduce interstudy heterogeneity. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were determined for 3.0 T and for 1.5 T along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Out of 8 studies identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria. 3.0 T (n = 160) had a pooled sensitivity of 69.5% (95% CI: 56.4-80.1%) and a pooled specificity of 48.8% (95% CI: 6.0-93.4%), while 1.5 T (n = 139) had a pooled sensitivity of 70.6% (95% CI: 55.0-82.5%; p = 0.91) and a pooled specificity of 41.7% (95% CI: 6.2-88.6%; p = 0.88). The pooled DOR for 3.0 T was 3 (95% CI: 0-26.0%), while the pooled DOR for 1.5 T was 2 (95% CI: 0-18.0%), which was not a significant difference (p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: 3.0 T has slightly better diagnostic performance than 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging (3 vs. 2), although without statistical significance. Our findings suggest the need for larger, randomized trials directly comparing 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer.