Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): A meta-analysis

被引:395
作者
Kinkel, K
Lu, Y
Both, M
Warren, RS
Thoeni, RF
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Geneva, Dept Radiol, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Epidemiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Surg, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Univ Kiel, Radiol Diagnost Klin, Dept Radiol, Kiel, Germany
关键词
computed tomography (CT); comparative studies; gastrointestinal tract; neoplasms; liver neoplasms; metastases; magnetic resonance (MR); positron emission tomography (PET); ultrasound; (US);
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2243011362
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
Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis to compare current noninvasive imaging methods (ultrasonography [US], computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance [MR] imaging , and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG] positron emission tomography [PET]) in the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers. Materials and methods: A MEDLINE literature search and review of article bibliographies and our institutional charts of patients with colorectal cancer identified data with histopathologic correlation or at least 6 months of patient follow-up. Two authors independently abstracted data sets and excluded data without contingency tables or data published more than once. Summary-weighted estimates of sensitivity were-obtained and stratified according to specificity of less than 85% or 85% and higher. A covariate analysis was used to evaluate the influence of patient- or study-related factors on sensitivity. Results: Among 111 data sets, nine US (509 patients), 25 CT (1,747 patients), 11 MR imaging (401 patients), and nine PET (423 patients) data sets met the inclusion criteria. In studies with a specificity higher than 85%, the mean weighted sensitivity was 55% (95% CI: 41, 68) for US, 72% (95% CI: 63, 80) for CT, 76% (95% CI: 57, 91) for MR imaging, and 90% (95% CI: 80, 97) for FDG PET. Results of pairwise comparison between imaging modalities demonstrated a greater sensitivity of FDG PET than US (P=.001), CT (P=.017), and MR imaging (P=.055). Conclusion: At equivalent specificity, FDG PET is the most sensitive noninvasive imaging modality for the diagnosis of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers. (C) RSNA, 2002.
引用
收藏
页码:748 / 756
页数:9
相关论文
共 62 条
[1]   Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: Correlation with histopathologic and CT findings [J].
Abdel-Nabi, H ;
Doerr, RJ ;
Lamonica, DM ;
Cronin, VR ;
Galantowicz, P ;
Carbone, GM ;
Spaulding, MB .
RADIOLOGY, 1998, 206 (03) :755-760
[2]   PREOPERATIVE CT STAGING OF COLON-CARCINOMA (EXCLUDING THE RECTOSIGMOID REGION) [J].
ACUNAS, B ;
ROZANES, I ;
ACUNAS, G ;
CELIK, L ;
SAYI, I ;
GOKMEN, E .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1990, 11 (02) :150-153
[3]  
Adachi Y, 1997, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V92, P872
[4]  
*AM CANC SOC, 1999, CANC FACTS FIG 1999
[5]   CARCINOMA OF THE COLON - DETECTION AND PREOPERATIVE STAGING BY CT [J].
BALTHAZAR, EJ ;
MEGIBOW, AJ ;
HULNICK, D ;
NAIDICH, DP .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1988, 150 (02) :301-306
[6]  
Boykin KN, 1999, AM SURGEON, V65, P1183
[7]   PREDICTIVE VALUE OF A NEGATIVE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC SCAN IN 100 PATIENTS WITH RECTAL-CARCINOMA [J].
CANCE, WG ;
COHEN, AM ;
ENKER, WE ;
SIGURDSON, ER .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 1991, 34 (09) :748-751
[8]  
Carter R, 1996, ANN ROY COLL SURG, V78, P27
[9]   HOW USEFUL IS PREOPERATIVE COMPUTERIZED-TOMOGRAPHY SCANNING IN STAGING RECTAL-CANCER [J].
CHAPUIS, P ;
KOS, S ;
BOKEY, L ;
DENT, O ;
NEWLAND, R ;
HINDER, J .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1989, 59 (01) :31-34
[10]   METHODOLOGIC GUIDELINES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS IN HEALTH-CARE FROM THE POTSDAM CONSULTATION ON METAANALYSIS [J].
COOK, DJ ;
SACKETT, DL ;
SPITZER, WO .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1995, 48 (01) :167-171