European journal of radiology · 2011
Computer tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computer tomography for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yuan Ying, Gu Zhao-Xiang, Tao Xiao-Feng, Liu Shi-Yuan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic performances of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and positron emission tomography (PET or PET/CT) for detection of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with ovarian cancer.
METHODS: Relevant studies were identified with MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1990 to July 2010. We estimated the weighted summary sensitivities, specificities, OR (odds ratio), and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves of each imaging technique and conducted pair-wise comparisons using the two-sample Z-test. Meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and funnel plots were also performed to explain the between-study heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Eighteen eligible studies were included, with a total of 882 patients. PET or PET/CT was a more accurate modality (sensitivity, 73.2%; specificity, 96.7%; OR [odds ratio], 90.32). No significant difference was detected between CT (sensitivity, 42.6%; specificity, 95.0%; OR, 19.87) and MR imaging (sensitivity, 54.7%; specificity, 88.3%; OR, 12.38). Meta-regression analyses and subgroup analyses revealed no statistical difference. Funnel plots with marked asymmetry suggested a publication bias.
CONCLUSION: FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT is more accurate than CT and MR imaging in the detection of lymph node metastasis in patients with ovarian cancer.
METHODS: Relevant studies were identified with MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1990 to July 2010. We estimated the weighted summary sensitivities, specificities, OR (odds ratio), and summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves of each imaging technique and conducted pair-wise comparisons using the two-sample Z-test. Meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and funnel plots were also performed to explain the between-study heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Eighteen eligible studies were included, with a total of 882 patients. PET or PET/CT was a more accurate modality (sensitivity, 73.2%; specificity, 96.7%; OR [odds ratio], 90.32). No significant difference was detected between CT (sensitivity, 42.6%; specificity, 95.0%; OR, 19.87) and MR imaging (sensitivity, 54.7%; specificity, 88.3%; OR, 12.38). Meta-regression analyses and subgroup analyses revealed no statistical difference. Funnel plots with marked asymmetry suggested a publication bias.
CONCLUSION: FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT is more accurate than CT and MR imaging in the detection of lymph node metastasis in patients with ovarian cancer.