已发表论文

前列腺癌前列腺外扩展的表观弥散系数:系统回顾和诊断汇总分析

 

Authors Bai K, Sun Y, Li W, Zhang L

Received 22 October 2018

Accepted for publication 7 March 2019

Published 11 April 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 3125—3137

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S191738

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewers approved by Ms Justinn Cochran

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Rituraj Purohit

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.
Keywords: apparent diffusion coefficient, prostatic cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, extraprostatic extension, length of capsular contact




Figure 2 Risk of bias and applicability concerns: review of author judgments about...