Accuracy of MR imaging for staging prostate cancer: A meta-analysis to examine the effect of technologic change

被引:51
作者
Sonnad, SS
Langlotz, CP
Schwartz, JS
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Dept Surg, CHOICES, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Leonard Davis Inst Hlth Econ, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Univ Penn, Dept Radiol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Univ Penn, Dept Epidemiol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Univ Penn, Dept Comp & Informat Sci, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
diagnostic staging; meta-analysis; MR imaging; prostate cancer;
D O I
10.1016/S1076-6332(01)90095-9
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Rationale and Objectives. The purpose of this study was to summarize the accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for staging prostate cancer and to determine the effect of high magnetic field strength, use of the endorectal coil, use of fast spin-echo (SE) imaging, and study size on staging accuracy. Materials and Methods. A literature search and review yielded 27 studies comparing MR imaging to a pathologic standard in patients with clinically limited prostate cancer. Subgroup analyses examined magnetic field strength, use of an endorectal coil, use of fast SE imaging, publication date, and study size. Results. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve for all studies had a maximum joint sensitivity and specificity of 74%. At a specificity of 80% on this curve, sensitivity was 69%. Subgroup analyses showed that fast SE imaging was statistically significantly more accurate than conventional SE techniques (P < .001). Unexpectedly, studies employing higher magnetic field strength and those employing an endorectal coil were less accurate. Conclusion, Seemingly small technologic advances may influence test accuracy. Early and small studies, however, may overstate accuracy because of publication bias, bias in small samples, or earlier studies being performed by the experts who developed the technology itself.
引用
收藏
页码:149 / 157
页数:9
相关论文
共 37 条
[11]   CANCER WITH ENDORECTAL MR-IMAGING - LESSONS FROM A LEARNING-CURVE [J].
HARRIS, RD ;
SCHNED, AR ;
HEANEY, JA .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 1995, 15 (04) :813-829
[12]   CARCINOMA OF THE PROSTATE-GLAND - MR-IMAGING WITH PELVIC PHASED-ARRAY COILS VERSUS INTEGRATED ENDORECTAL PELVIC PHASED-ARRAY COILS [J].
HRICAK, H ;
WHITE, S ;
VIGNERON, D ;
KURHANEWICZ, J ;
KOSCO, A ;
LEVIN, D ;
WEISS, J ;
NARAYAN, P ;
CARROLL, PR .
RADIOLOGY, 1994, 193 (03) :703-709
[13]   PROSTATIC-CARCINOMA - STAGING BY CLINICAL-ASSESSMENT, CT, AND MR IMAGING [J].
HRICAK, H ;
DOOMS, GC ;
JEFFREY, RB ;
AVALLONE, A ;
JACOBS, D ;
BENTON, WK ;
NARAYAN, P ;
TANAGHO, EA .
RADIOLOGY, 1987, 162 (02) :331-336
[14]   Local staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: Correlation with histopathology [J].
Jager, GJ ;
Ruijter, ETG ;
vandeKaa, CA ;
delaRosette, JJMCH ;
Oosterhof, GON ;
Thornbury, JR ;
Barentsz, JO .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1996, 166 (04) :845-852
[15]   PROSTATIC-CARCINOMA AND BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA - MR IMAGING WITH HISTOPATHOLOGIC CORRELATION [J].
KAHN, T ;
BURRIG, K ;
SCHMITZDRAGER, B ;
LEWIN, JS ;
FURST, G ;
MODDER, U .
RADIOLOGY, 1989, 173 (03) :847-851
[16]   FAST SPIN-ECHO MR-IMAGES OF THE PELVIS OBTAINED WITH A PHASED-ARRAY COIL - VALUE IN LOCALIZING AND STAGING PROSTATIC-CARCINOMA [J].
KIER, R ;
WAIN, S ;
TROIANO, R .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1993, 161 (03) :601-606
[17]   STAGING OF PROSTATIC-CANCER - ACCURACY OF MR-IMAGING [J].
LANGLOTZ, C ;
SCHNALL, M ;
POLLACK, H .
RADIOLOGY, 1995, 194 (03) :645-646
[18]   Meta-analysis of diagnostic procedures: A brief overview [J].
Langlotz, CP ;
Sonnad, SS .
ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 1998, 5 :S269-S273
[19]  
Listerud J, 1992, Magn Reson Q, V8, P199
[20]   ESTIMATING DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY FROM MULTIPLE CONFLICTING REPORTS - A NEW METAANALYTIC METHOD [J].
LITTENBERG, B ;
MOSES, LE .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1993, 13 (04) :313-321