Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Diagnostic value of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI in staging prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Virarkar, Mayur; Szklaruk, Janio; Diab, Radwan; Bassett, Roland; Bhosale, Priya.
Afiliação
  • Virarkar M; Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida 32209, USA.
  • Szklaruk J; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
  • Diab R; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
  • Bassett R; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
  • Bhosale P; Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Pol J Radiol ; 87: e421-e429, 2022.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35979151
Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in the staging of prostate cancer. Material and methods: English-language studies on the diagnostic accuracy of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging published through May 2020 were searched for in relevant databases. The focus was on studies in which both 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI were performed in the study population, to reduce interstudy heterogeneity. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were determined for 3.0 T and for 1.5 T along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Out of 8 studies identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria. 3.0 T (n = 160) had a pooled sensitivity of 69.5% (95% CI: 56.4-80.1%) and a pooled specificity of 48.8% (95% CI: 6.0-93.4%), while 1.5 T (n = 139) had a pooled sensitivity of 70.6% (95% CI: 55.0-82.5%; p = 0.91) and a pooled specificity of 41.7% (95% CI: 6.2-88.6%; p = 0.88). The pooled DOR for 3.0 T was 3 (95% CI: 0-26.0%), while the pooled DOR for 1.5 T was 2 (95% CI: 0-18.0%), which was not a significant difference (p = 0.89). Conclusions: 3.0 T has slightly better diagnostic performance than 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging (3 vs. 2), although without statistical significance. Our findings suggest the need for larger, randomized trials directly comparing 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Pol J Radiol Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Pol J Radiol Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos