Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using an endorectal coil versus a non-endorectal coil: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance in staging T3 prostate cancer.
Tirumani, S H; Suh, C H; Kim, K W; Shinagare, A B; Ramaiya, N H; Fennessy, F M.
Afiliación
  • Tirumani SH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: sreeharsha.tirumani@uhhospitals.org.
  • Suh CH; Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Kim KW; Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  • Shinagare AB; Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Ramaiya NH; Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Fennessy FM; Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Clin Radiol ; 75(2): 157.e9-157.e19, 2020 02.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31711637
AIM: To compare the diagnostic performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with an endorectal coil (ERC) to performance without an ERC using either body-array (BAC) or pelvic phased-array coil (PAC) in staging T3 prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of the PUBMED and EMBASE databases was performed until 10 October 2018 to identify studies performing a head-to-head comparison of prostate MRI using a 1.5 or 3 T magnet with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC for staging T3 prostate cancer. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of all studies were plotted in a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot. The diagnostic performance of the two techniques in staging T3 disease was evaluated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies comparing head-to-head prostate MRI with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC were identified of which six studies compared the diagnostic performance. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI with an ERC for detecting T3a, T3b and T3a+b was 53% and 95%; 52% and 92%; 72% and 65% respectively. For MRI with a BAC/PAC these were 34%, and 95%; 45% and 94%; 70% and 66%. There was no statistical difference between an ERC and a BAC/PAC in terms of sensitivity (p=0.41) and specificity (p=0.63) for T3a. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for T3a, T3b and T3a+b was 0.830, 0.901, 0.741 for an ERC and 0.790, 0.645, 0.711 for BAC, respectively. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of MRI of prostate with an ERC and with a BAC/PAC in staging T3 prostate cancer.
Asunto(s)
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata / Imagen por Resonancia Magnética Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Adult / Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Radiol Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Neoplasias de la Próstata / Imagen por Resonancia Magnética Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Adult / Aged / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Clin Radiol Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido