Li Wei, Shang Wenwen, Lu Feng, Sun Yuan, Tian Jun, Wu Yiman, Dong Anding
Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng, China.
Department of Radiology, Wuxi No. 2 People's Hospital, Wuxi, China.
Front Oncol. 2022 Jan 25;11:792120. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.792120. eCollection 2021.
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the extraprostatic extension (EPE) grading system for detection of EPE in patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
We performed a literature search of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to identify eligible articles published before August 31, 2021, with no language restrictions applied. We included studies using the EPE grading system for the prediction of EPE, with histopathological results as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated with the bivariate model. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
A total of 4 studies with 1,294 patients were included in the current systematic review. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 (95% CI 0.76-0.87) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.51-0.73), with the area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve of 0.82 (95% CI 0.79-0.85). The pooled LR+, LR-, and DOR were 2.20 (95% CI 1.70-2.86), 0.28 (95% CI 0.22-0.36), and 7.77 (95% CI 5.27-11.44), respectively. Quality assessment for included studies was high, and Deeks's funnel plot indicated that the possibility of publication bias was low ( = 0.64).
The EPE grading system demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity, with a good inter-reader agreement. However, this scoring system needs more studies to be validated in clinical practice.
评估前列腺外侵犯(EPE)分级系统在前列腺癌(PCa)患者中检测EPE的诊断性能。
我们对Web of Science、MEDLINE(Ovid和PubMed)、Cochrane图书馆、EMBASE和谷歌学术进行了文献检索,以识别2021年8月31日前发表的符合条件的文章,不设语言限制。我们纳入了使用EPE分级系统预测EPE的研究,以组织病理学结果作为参考标准。采用双变量模型计算合并敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比(LR+)、阴性似然比(LR-)和诊断比值比(DOR)。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具对纳入研究进行质量评估。
本系统评价共纳入4项研究,1294例患者。合并敏感性和特异性分别为0.82(95%CI 0.76-0.87)和0.63(95%CI 0.51-0.73),分层汇总接受者操作特征(HSROC)曲线下面积为0.82(95%CI 0.79-0.85)。合并LR+、LR-和DOR分别为2.20(95%CI 1.70-2.86)、0.28(95%CI 0.22-0.36)和7.77(95%CI 5.27-11.44)。纳入研究的质量评估为高,Deeks漏斗图表明发表偏倚的可能性较低(=0.64)。
EPE分级系统显示出高敏感性和中等特异性,读者间一致性良好。然而,该评分系统需要更多研究在临床实践中进行验证。