A Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Studies Which Use Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy as a Diagnostic Tool.
- Author:
Peng WANG
1
;
You Min GUO
;
Min LIU
;
Yong Qian QIANG
;
Xiao Juan GUO
;
Yi Li ZHANG
;
Xiao Yi DUAN
;
Qiu Juan ZHANG
;
Weifeng LIANG
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Meta-Analysis ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords: Prostate carcinoma; Magnetic resonance (MR), spectroscopy; Meta-analysis; Summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC)
- MeSH: Humans; Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy/*diagnostic use; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms/*diagnosis/metabolism; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2008;9(5):432-438
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: We aimed to do a meta-analysis of the existing literature to assess the accuracy of prostate cancer studies which use magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) as a diagnostic tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively, independent, blind studies were selected from the Cochrane library, Pubmed, and other network databases. The criteria for inclusion and exclusion in this study referenced the criteria of diagnostic research published by the Cochrane center. The statistical analysis was adopted by using Meta-Test version 6.0. Using the homogeneity test, a statistical effect model was chosen to calculate different pooled weighted values of sensitivity, specificity, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves method was used to assess the results. RESULTS: We chose two cut-off values (0.75 and 0.86) as the diagnostic criteria for discriminating between benign and malignant. In the first diagnostic criterion, the pooled weighted sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CI (expressed as area under curve [AUC]) were 0.82 (0.73, 0.89), 0.68 (0.58, 0.76), and 83.4% (74.97, 91.83). In the second criterion, the pooled weighted sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CI were 0.64 (0.55, 0.72), 0.86 (0.79, 0.91) and 82.7% (68.73, 96.68). CONCLUSION: As a new method in the diagnostic of prostate cancer, MRS has a better applied value compared to other common modalities. Ultimately, large scale RCT (randomized controlled trial) randomized controlled trial studies are necessary to assess its clinical value.
