Clinical Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 4 , Pages 387-395 , April 2008

The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

  • A.M. Hövels

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Technology Assessment, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: A.M. Hövels, Department of Medical Technology Assessment 253, Radboud University Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein 21, 6525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 24 3610386; fax: +31 24 3610383.
    • ,
  • R.A.M. Heesakkers

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • E.M. Adang

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medical Technology Assessment, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • G.J. Jager

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • S. Strum

      Affiliations

    • Medical Oncology, Ashland Community Hospital, Ashland, Oregon, USA
    • ,
  • Y.L. Hoogeveen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • J.L. Severens

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Organisation, Policy, and Economics, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • J.O. Barentsz

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands

Received 14 February 2007 ,Revised 21 May 2007 ,Accepted 25 May 2007.

References 

  1. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58:843–848
  2. Narayan P, Gajendran V, Taylor SP, et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy-based staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final pathologic diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology. 1995;46:205–212
  3. Bluestein DL, Bostwick DG, Bergstralh EJ, et al. Eliminating the need for bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy in select patients with prostate cancer. J Urol. 1994;151:1315–1320
  4. D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Combined modality staging of prostate carcinoma and its utility in predicting pathologic stage and postoperative prostate specific antigen failure. Urology. 1997;49:23–30
  5. D'Amico AV. Combined modality staging for localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Oncology (Williston Park). 2001;15:1049–1059[discussion 1060–2, 1064–5, 1069–70, 1073–5]
  6. Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, et al. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MR imaging with a three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1503–1507
  7. Wolf JS, Cher M, Dall'Era M, et al. The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 1995;53:993–999
  8. Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA. 1999;282:1061–1066
  9. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In:  Egger M,  Smiths GS,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ; 2001;p. 285–311
  10. Moses LE, Shapiro D. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–1316
  11. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PMM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002;21:1525–1537
  12. Scheidler J, Hricak H, Yu KK, et al. Radiological evaluation of lymph node metastases in patients with cervical cancer, a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1997;278:1096–1101
  13. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–1135
  14. Walter SD. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med. 2002;21:1237–1256
  15. Benson KH, Watson RA, Spring DB, et al. The value of computerized tomography in evaluation of pelvic lymph nodes. J Urol. 1981;126:63–64
  16. Golimbu M, Morales P, Al-Askari S, et al. CAT scanning of prostate cancer. Urology. 1981;18:305–308
  17. Levine MS, Arger PH, Coleman BG, et al. Detecting lymphatic metastases from prostatic carcinoma: superiority of CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137:207–211
  18. Morgan CL, Calkins RF, Cavalcanti EJ. Computed tomography in the evaluation, staging and therapy of carcinoma of the bladder and prostate. Radiology. 1981;140:751–761
  19. Giri PGS, Walsh JW, Hazra TA, et al. Role of computed tomography in the evaluation and management of carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1982;8:283–287
  20. Emory TH, Reinke DB, Hill AL, et al. Use of CT to reduce understaging in prostatic cancer: comparison with conventional staging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141:351–354
  21. Sawczuk IS, deVere White R, Palmer Gold R, et al. Sensitivity of computed tomography in evaluation of pelvic lymph node metastases from carcinoma of bladder and prostate. Urology. 1983;21:81–83
  22. Weinerman PM, Arger PH, Coleman BG, et al. Pelvic adenopathy from bladder and prostate carcinoma: detection by rapid-sequence computed tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;140:95–99
  23. Flanigan RC, Mohler JL, King CT, et al. Preoperative lymph node evaluation in prostatic cancer patients who are surgical candidates: the role of lymphangiography and computerized tomography scanning with directed fine needle aspiration. J Urol. 1985;134:84–87
  24. Mukamel E, Hannah J, Barbaric Z, et al. The value of computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging prostatic carcinoma: comparison with the clinical and histological staging. J Urol. 1986;136:1231–1233
  25. Biondetti PR, Lee JKL, Ling D, et al. Clinical stage B prostate carcinoma staging with MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;162:325–329
  26. Hricak H, Dooms GC, Jeffrey RB, et al. Prostatic carcinoma: staging by clinical assessment, CT, and MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;162:331–336
  27. Platt JF, Bree RL, Schwab RE. The accuracy of CT in the staging of carcinoma of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;149:315–318
  28. Engeler CE, Wasserman NF, Zhang G. Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography. Urology. 1992;40:346–350
  29. Van Poppel H, Ameye F, Oyen R, et al. Accuracy of combined computerized tomography and fine needle aspiration cytology in lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol. 1994;151:1310–1314
  30. Flanigan RC, McKay TC, Olson M, et al. Limited efficacy of preoperative computed tomographic scanning for the evaluation of lymph node metastasis in patients before radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1996;48:428–432
  31. Rorvik J, Halvorson OJ, Albrektsen G, et al. Lymphangiography combined with biopsy and computer tomography to detect lymph node metastases in localized prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1998;32:116–119
  32. Borley N, Fabin K, Sriprasad S, et al. Laparascopic pelvic lymph node dissection allows significantly more accurate staging in “high risk” prostate cancer compared to MRI or CT. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2003;37:382–386
  33. Bezzi M, Kressel HY, Alen KS, et al. Prostatic carcinoma: staging with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology. 1988;169:339–346
  34. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer. Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:621–626
  35. Kier R, Wain S, Troiano R. Fast spin echo MR images of the pelvis obtained with a phased-array coil: value in localizing and staging prostatic carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;161:601–606
  36. Perotti M, Kaufman RP, Jennings TA, et al. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate?. J Urol. 1996;156:106–109
  37. Harisinghani MG, Barentsz JO, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection in clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2491–2499
  38. McSherry SA, Levy F, Schiebler ML, et al. Preoperative prediction of pathological tumor volume and stage in clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 1991;146:85–89
  39. Guyatt GH, Tugwell PX, Feeny DH, et al. A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies. Can Med Assoc J. 1986;134:587–594
  40. Mitchell MD. Validation of the summary ROC for diagnostic rest meta-analysis: a Monte Carlo simulation. Acad Radiol. 2003;10:25–31
  41. Hovels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EMM, et al. Cost-analysis of staging methods for lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: MRI with a lymph node-specific contrast agent compared to pelvic lymph node dissection or CT. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1707–1712

PII: S0009-9260(07)00334-0

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022

Clinical Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 4 , Pages 387-395 , April 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution