Current issue
Archive
Manuscripts accepted
About the journal
Editorial board
Abstracting and indexing
Contact
Instructions for authors
Ethical standards and procedures
Editorial System
Submit your Manuscript
|
1/2022
vol. 87 Urogenital radiology
abstract:
Original paper
Diagnostic value of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI in staging prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
Mayur Virarkar
1
,
Janio Szklaruk
2
,
Radwan Diab
2
,
Roland Bassett, Jr.
2
,
Priya Bhosale
2
1.
Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida 32209, USA
2.
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA
© Pol J Radiol 2022; 87: e421-e429
Online publish date: 2022/07/29
View full text
Get citation
ENW EndNote
BIB JabRef, Mendeley
RIS Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
Introduction
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. keywords:
15 T, 30 T, prostate cancer, meta-analysis |