Suppr超能文献

头对头比较双参数和多参数 MRI 诊断前列腺癌:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Head-to-Head Comparison Between Biparametric and Multiparametric MRI for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

机构信息

1 Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital and College of Medicine, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea.

2 Meta-analysis for Imaging Studies on Diagnostic Test Accuracy and prognosiS (MIDAS) Group, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Nov;211(5):W226-W241. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.19880. Epub 2018 Sep 21.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of a head-to-head comparison between the performance of biparametric MRI (bpMRI; only T2-weighted imaging and DWI) and that of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI; T2-weighted imaging, DWI, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI) for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched up to November 11, 2017. The search included diagnostic test accuracy studies that compared bpMRI and mpMRI for prostate cancer diagnosis with histopathologic findings from biopsy or radical prostatectomy as the reference standard. Methodologic quality was evaluated with the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled by means of bivariate and hierarchic summary ROC (HSROC) modeling and graphically presented with HSROC plots. Meta-regression analysis and multiple subgroup analyses were used to compare the diagnostic performances of bpMRI and mpMRI.

RESULTS

Twenty studies (2142 patients) were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86-0.93) for bpMRI and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69-0.82) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.93) for mpMRI. MRI protocol (bpMRI vs mpMRI) was not a significant factor in heterogeneity (p = 0.83). In 26 subgroups evaluated on the basis of stratification to clinicopathologic, study, and MRI characteristics, MRI protocol (bpMRI vs mpMRI) was not a significant factor in heterogeneity in any subgroup (p = 0.25-0.97).

CONCLUSION

A head-to-head comparison showed that the performance of bpMRI was similar to that of mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Consistent results were found in multiple subgroup analyses.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在对双参数 MRI(仅 T2 加权成像和 DWI)与多参数 MRI(T2 加权成像、DWI、动态对比增强 MRI)对头对头比较在前列腺癌诊断中的性能进行系统评价和荟萃分析。

材料和方法

截至 2017 年 11 月 11 日,检索了 PubMed 和 Embase 数据库。该检索包括以活检或根治性前列腺切除术的组织病理学发现为参考标准的比较双参数 MRI 和多参数 MRI 用于前列腺癌诊断的诊断试验准确性研究。采用改良的诊断准确性研究质量评估工具评估方法学质量。采用双变量和分层综合受试者工作特征(HSROC)模型汇总敏感性和特异性,并以 HSROC 图进行图形表示。采用荟萃回归分析和多个亚组分析比较双参数 MRI 和多参数 MRI 的诊断性能。

结果

共纳入 20 项研究(2142 例患者)。汇总的敏感性和特异性分别为双参数 MRI 组为 0.74(95%CI,0.66-0.81)和 0.90(95%CI,0.86-0.93),多参数 MRI 组为 0.76(95%CI,0.69-0.82)和 0.89(95%CI,0.85-0.93)。MRI 方案(双参数 MRI 与多参数 MRI)不是异质性的显著因素(p=0.83)。在基于临床病理、研究和 MRI 特征分层评估的 26 个亚组中,MRI 方案(双参数 MRI 与多参数 MRI)在任何亚组中均不是异质性的显著因素(p=0.25-0.97)。

结论

头对头比较表明,双参数 MRI 在前列腺癌诊断中的性能与多参数 MRI 相似。多项亚组分析结果一致。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验