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

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Polish Journal of Radiology Pub Date : 2022-07-29 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pjr.2022.118685
Mayur Virarkar, Janio Szklaruk, Radwan Diab, Roland Bassett, Priya Bhosale
{"title":"Diagnostic value of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI in staging prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mayur Virarkar,&nbsp;Janio Szklaruk,&nbsp;Radwan Diab,&nbsp;Roland Bassett,&nbsp;Priya Bhosale","doi":"10.5114/pjr.2022.118685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the diagnostic performance of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in the staging of prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 8 studies identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria. 3.0 T (<i>n</i> = 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 (<i>n</i> = 139) had a pooled sensitivity of 70.6% (95% CI: 55.0-82.5%; <i>p</i> = 0.91) and a pooled specificity of 41.7% (95% CI: 6.2-88.6%; <i>p</i> = 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 (<i>p</i> = 0.89).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47128,"journal":{"name":"Polish Journal of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/26/86/PJR-87-47621.PMC9373864.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.118685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
3.0 T与1.5 T MRI在前列腺癌分期中的诊断价值:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:比较3.0 T与1.5 T MRI对前列腺癌分期的诊断价值。材料与方法:检索截至2020年5月发表的有关3.0 T和1.5 T MRI诊断前列腺癌分期准确性的英文研究。重点是在研究人群中同时进行3.0 T和1.5 T MRI的研究,以减少研究间的异质性。确定3.0 T和1.5 T的合并敏感性、特异性、诊断优势比(DOR)和受试者工作特征曲线下面积以及95%置信区间(ci)。结果:纳入的8项研究中,4项符合纳入标准。3.0 T (n = 160)的合并敏感性为69.5% (95% CI: 56.4-80.1%),合并特异性为48.8% (95% CI: 6.0-93.4%),而1.5 T (n = 139)的合并敏感性为70.6% (95% CI: 55.0-82.5%;p = 0.91),合并特异性为41.7% (95% CI: 6.2-88.6%;P = 0.88)。3.0 T的合并DOR为3 (95% CI: 0-26.0%),而1.5 T的合并DOR为2 (95% CI: 0-18.0%),差异无统计学意义(p = 0.89)。结论:3.0 T MRI对前列腺癌分期的诊断效能略优于1.5 T MRI(3比2),但无统计学意义。我们的研究结果表明,需要进行更大规模的随机试验,直接比较3.0 T和1.5 T MRI在前列腺癌中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Polish Journal of Radiology
Polish Journal of Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lung ultrasound in a nutshell. Lines, signs, some applications, and misconceptions from a radiologist's point of view. Ablation of pulmonary neoplasms: review of literature and future perspectives. Bone marrow lesions of the femoral head: can radiomics distinguish whether it is reversible? Summary of radiation dose management and optimization: comparison of radiation protection measures between Poland and other countries. Diagnosis and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis - a comprehensive overview.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1