Bai K, Sun Y, Li W, Zhang L. Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.
Cancer Manag Res 2019;
11:3125-3137. [PMID:
31114355 PMCID:
PMC6489658 DOI:
10.2147/cmar.s191738]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2018] [Accepted: 03/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse