Diagnostic value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of residual or recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy:A meta-analysis
10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.20130362
- VernacularTitle:动态增强磁共振对前列腺癌术后复发或残留诊断的Meta分析
- Author:
Yanhong YAO
;
Haitao WANG
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
magnetic resonance imaging;
prostatic neoplasm;
recurrence;
prostatectomy;
meta-analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology
2013;(22):1395-1399
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To determine the diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in patients with recurrent or residual prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Methods:Studies were systematically searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, SCI, CBM, CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and other databases. Additional studies were manually searched using the references of the retrieved articles. The retrieved deadline time was June 6th, 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the qualities of the studies were reviewed based on the QUADAS criteria. The Meta Disc 1.4 software was used for meta-analysis, and a summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. The patient-based pooled weighted estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds radio, and 95%confidence interval were calculated. Results:Among the 118 eligible studies, 7 articles (12 studies) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled weighted estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve were 0.88 (95%confidence interval:0.84 and 0.91), 0.87 (95%confidence interval:0.81 and 0.92), and 0.939 1, respectively. The pooled diagnostic radio (dOR) was 50.4 (95%confidence interval:26.0 and 97.6) and Q*was 0.876 4. Conclusion:DCE-MRI has high sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of locally recurrent or residual prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, in which the diagnostic efficiency of DCE-MRI combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy is much better.
