Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Are All Pulse Sequences Helpful?.
10.3348/kjr.2018.19.6.1110
- Author:
Xiao Li LIAO
1
;
Jun Bao WEI
;
Yong Qiang LI
;
Jian Hong ZHONG
;
Cheng Cheng LIAO
;
Chang Yuan WEI
Author Information
1. Department of First Chemotherapy, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, China.
- Publication Type:Meta-Analysis ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Prostate cancer;
Recurrence;
MRI;
Meta-analysis: Functional MRI
- MeSH:
Area Under Curve;
Biopsy;
Diagnosis*;
Humans;
Logistic Models;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging*;
Prostate*;
Prostatectomy;
Prostatic Neoplasms*;
Radiotherapy;
Recurrence;
ROC Curve;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Spectrum Analysis
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology
2018;19(6):1110-1118
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to quantitatively assess functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of locally recurrent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2016. Diagnostic accuracy was quantitatively pooled for all studies by using hierarchical logistic regression modeling, including bivariate modeling and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves (AUCs). The Z test was used to determine whether adding functional MRI to T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) results in significantly increased diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 826 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy showed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 91%, and the AUC was 0.96. Meta-analysis of 7 studies involving 329 patients who underwent radiotherapy showed a pooled sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 81%, and the AUC was 0.88. Meta-analysis of 11 studies reporting 1669 sextant biopsies from patients who underwent radiotherapy showed a pooled sensitivity of 54% and specificity of 91%, and the AUC was 0.85. Sensitivity after radiotherapy was significantly higher when diffusion-weighted MRI data were combined with T2WI than when only T2WI results were used. This was true when meta-analysis was performed on a per-patient basis (p = 0.027) or per sextant biopsy (p = 0.046). A similar result was found when ¹H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy (¹H-MRS) data were combined with T2WI and sextant biopsy was the unit of analysis (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Functional MRI data may not strengthen the ability of T2WI to detect locally recurrent prostate cancer in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. By contrast, diffusion-weight MRI and ¹H-MRS data may improve the sensitivity of T2WI for patients who have undergone radiotherapy.
