Evidence Hub

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Are All Pulse Sequences Helpful?

Xiao-Li Liao, Jundan Wei, Yong-qiang Li, Jian-Hong Zhong, ChengHong Liao, Chang-yuan Wei

Korean Journal of Radiology, 2018

826 participants · 6 citations

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…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 826 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free