Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis
Authors Bai K, Sun Y, Li W, Zhang L
Received 22 October 2018
Accepted for publication 7 March 2019
Published 11 April 2019 Volume 2019:11 Pages 3125—3137
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Ms Justinn Cochran
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Rituraj Purohit
Koudi Bai,1 Yuan Sun,2 Wei Li,3 Lanlan Zhang4
1Department of Radiology, Yancheng First Peoples’ Hospital, Yancheng City, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Orthopedics, No.97 Hospital of People’s Liberation Army of China, Xuzhou City, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Medical Imaging, Jiangsu Vocational College of Medicine, Yancheng City, People’s Republic of China; 4Department of Pediatrics, Yancheng Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Yancheng City, People’s Republic of China
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for local staging of prostate cancer.
Methods: Databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched up to May 31, 2018, with language restricted to English. All studies concerning multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) with ADC for detection of extracapsular extension (ECE, T3a) and/or extraprostatic extension (EPE, overall stage of T3) were identified by two reviewers independently, and quality of included studies was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. True positive, false positive, false negative and true negative of each study were extracted to reconstruct the 2×2 tables for evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated with bivariate model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model, then presented in forest plots. Multiple subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was evaluated with Deeks funnel.
Results: A total of 18 studies were included, with 6 involved ECE and 12 for EPE. Pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 76.5–83.9%) with specificity of 69.1% (95% CI 62.3–75.2%). Multiple subgroup analyses showed that if ADC and length of capsular contact are regarded as independent predictors, pooled sensitivity was 85% (95% CI 77–90%) and 81.1% (95% CI 76.0–85.3%), with specificity of 70.8% (95% CI 56.3–82.0%) and 66.6% (95% CI 57.6–74.5%), respectively. Meta-regression demonstrated that there was no substantially significant difference in types of coil, magnet field strength (1.5T versus 3.0T), and analysis method (per-lesion versus per-patient).
Conclusion: By introducing ADC to MRI, we could obtain favorable sensitivity for diagnostic performance of EPE, but with a little decreased specificity.
Keywords: apparent diffusion coefficient, prostatic cancer, magnetic resonance imaging, extraprostatic extension, length of capsular contact
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]