Prostate Cancer Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T

Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Colorectal Cancer Detection: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which uses strong magnetic fields and radio waves (radiofrequency energy) to make images, is one of the best imaging methods for soft tissues and can clearly display unique anatomical structures. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has been developed for identifying various malignant tumors.

Aim

To investigate the diagnostic value of DWI-MRI quantitative analysis in colorectal cancer detection.

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 29, 2020. Studies published in English that used DWI-MRI for diagnosing colorectal cancer were included. Case reports, letters, reviews, and studies conducted in non-humans or in-vitro experiments were excluded. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were computed for DWI, and the area under the curve (AUC) and associated standard error (SE) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also used.

Results

In total, 15 studies with 1,655 participants were finally included in this meta-analysis. There were four prospective studies and 11 retrospective studies. Eight studies focused on rectal cancer, six on colorectal cancer, and one on colonic cancer. The performance of DWI-MRI for diagnosing colorectal cancer was accurate, with pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.88 (95% CI = 0.85–0.91), 0.92 (95% CI = 0.91–0.94), 30.36 (95% CI = 11.05–83.43), and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.30–0.64), respectively. The DOR and HSROC curves were 121 (95% CI = 56–261) and 0.92 (λ: 4.79), respectively.

Conclusion

DWI showed high diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer detection. Further studies with large sample sizes and prospective design are needed to confirm these results.

Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) has not been studied systematically to date.

PURPOSE

To investigate the value of DWI combined with DCE-MRI quantitative analysis in the diagnosis of PCa.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases without any restriction to language up to 10 December 2019. Studies that used a combination of DWI and DCE-MRI for diagnosing PCa were included.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 778 participants were included. The combination of DWI and DCE-MRI provide accurate performance in diagnosing PCa with pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratios of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76-0.81), 0.85 (95% CI = 0.83-0.86), 6.58 (95% CI = 3.93-11.00), 0.24 (95% CI = 0.17-0.34), and 36.43 (95% CI = 14.41-92.12), respectively. The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9268. Moreover, 1.5-T MR scanners demonstrated a slightly better performance than 3.0-T scanners.

CONCLUSION

Combined DCE-MRI and DWI could demonstrate a highly accurate area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity for detecting PCa. More studies with large sample sizes are warranted to confirm these results.

Magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in diagnosis of suspicious prostate cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) in the diagnosis of suspected prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

We identified all the relevant papers from the EMBASE, PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases and screened the reference lists. The quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-version 2 tool was used to assess the study quality. Publication bias was analyzed using Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test. We calculated the pooled sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratios, negative likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and 95% confidence intervals. The results were evaluated by summary receiver-operating characteristic curves (SROCs). Ultimately, a univariable meta-regression and subgroup analysis, Fagan plot, and likelihood matrix were used to analyze this review.

RESULTS

A total of 19 articles, which were based on patient-level analysis of PC, were included. These studies had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and an area under the SROC of 0.86, 0.78, 22, and 0.89, respectively, by patient-level analysis. From the likelihood matrix, the summary negative likelihood ratio and positive likelihood ratio for MRSI diagnosis of PC were concentrated on the right lower quadrant, which neither confirmed nor excluded the diagnosis of cancer.

CONCLUSION

MRSI has a relative application value in the diagnosis of cases of suspected PC. While MRSI is still required for diagnosis along with other clinical data and comprehensive analysis.

A systematic review on multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer detection

BACKGROUND

Literature data suggest that multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), including morphologic T2-weigthed images (T2-MRI) and functional approaches such as Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI (DCE-MRI), Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging (MRSI), give an added value in the prostate cancer localization and local staging.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of literature about the role and the potentiality of morphological and functional MRI in prostate cancer, also in a multimodal / multiparametric approach, and we reported the diagnostic accuracy results for different imaging modalities and for different MR coil settings: endorectal coil (ERC) and phased array coil (PAC). Forest plots and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed. Risk of bias and the applicability at study level were calculated.

RESULTS

Thirty three papers were identified for the systematic review. Sensitivity and specificity values were, respectively, for T2-MRI of 75% and of 60%, for DCE-MRI of 80% and of 72%, for MRSI of 89% and of 69%, for combined T2-MRI and DCE-MRI of 87% and of 46%, for combined T2-MRI and MRSI of 79% and of 57%, for combined T2-MRI, DWI and DCE-MRI of 81% and of 84%, and for combined MRSI and DCE-MRI of 83% and of 83%. For MRI studies performed with ERC we obtained a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 81% and of 66% while the pooled values for MRI studies performed with PAC were of 78% and of 64%, respectively (p>0.05 at McNemar test). No studies were excluded from the analysis based on the quality assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

ERC use yielded no additional benefit in terms of prostate cancer detection accuracy compared to multi-channel PAC use (71% versus 68%) while the use of additional functional imaging techniques (DCE-MRI, DWI and MRSI) in a multiparametric MRI protocol improves the accuracy of prostate cancer detection allowing both the early cure and the guidance of biopsy.

Magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of prostate cancer and review of the literature on magnetic resonance imaging-stratified clinical pathways

INTRODUCTION

With level 1 evidence now available on the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) we must now utilise this data in developing an MRI-stratified diagnostic pathway for the early detection of prostate cancer. Areas covered: A literature review was conducted and identified seven randomised control trials (RCT's) assessing the diagnostic accuracy of such a pathway against the previously accepted systematic/random trans-rectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) biopsy pathway. The studies were heterogeneous in their design. Five studies assessed the addition of MRI-targeted biopsies to a standard care systematic TRUS biopsy pathway. Three of these studies showed either an increase in their diagnostic accuracy or the potential to remove systematic biopsies. Two studies looked specifically at a targeted biopsy only pathway and although the results were again mixed, there was no decrease in the diagnostic rate and overall significantly fewer biopsy cores were taken in the MRI group. Expert commentary: Results from these RCT's together with multiple retrospective and prospective studies point towards either an improved diagnostic rate for clinically significant cancer and/or a reduction in the need for systematic biopsies with a MRI-stratified pathway. The challenge for the urological community will be to implement pre-biopsy MRI into a routine clinical pathway with likely independent monitoring of standards.