A Comprehensive Comparison of CT, MRI, Positron Emission Tomography or Positron Emission Tomography/CT, and Diffusion Weighted Imaging-MRI for Detecting the Lymph Nodes Metastases in Patients with Cervical Cancer: A Meta-Analysis Based on 67 Studies

被引:168
作者
Liu, Bin [1 ]
Gao, Sujuan [2 ]
Li, Shuofeng [1 ]
机构
[1] Cangzhou Cent Hosp, Radiol Dept, Cangzhou 061001, Hebei, Peoples R China
[2] Cangzhou Cent Hosp, Dept Obstet 3, Cangzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
CT; Positron emission tomography; MRI; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Cervical cancer; Lymph node; Metastasis; PARAAORTIC NODAL METASTASIS; PHASED-ARRAY COIL; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; CARCINOMA; PET/CT; ACCURACY; DIAGNOSIS; PERFORMANCE; INVOLVEMENT; PET/MRI;
D O I
10.1159/000456006
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Object: In recent times, many published papers reported the diagnostic performance of CT, MRI, positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-[F-18] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) for detecting the lymph nodes (LNs) metastases in patients with cervical cancer. This study is aimed at assessing and comparing the diagnostic value of those non-invasive modalities in detecting the LNs metastases in cervical cancer patients. Methods: Studies on the non-invasive modalities for the detection of metastatic LNs were searched in PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase databases. Pooled positive likelihood ratios and negative likelihood ratios, diagnostic OR, area under curve (AUC), summary receiver operating characteristics were calculated as evaluation indices. Results: In region-or node-based analysis, the AUC of DWI-MRI (0.92) and PET or PET/CT (0.90) were better than CT (0.83), and the difference was significant (DWI-MRI vs. CT: Z = 4.61, p < 0.001; PET or PET/CT vs. CT: Z = 3.61, p = 0.001). Conclusion: Among the 4 non-invasive modalities, the PET or PET/CT has the highest specificity, and DWI-MRI has the highest sensitivity. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:209 / 222
页数:14
相关论文
共 80 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2018, ANTI-CANCER DRUG, DOI [DOI 10.3322/caac.20115, DOI 10.1097/CAD.0000000000000617]
  • [2] BANDY LC, 1985, OBSTET GYNECOL, V65, P73
  • [3] Contribution of whole-body 18FDG PET imaging in the management of cervical cancer
    Belhocine, T
    Thille, A
    Fridman, V
    Albert, A
    Seidel, L
    Nickers, P
    Kridelka, F
    Rigo, P
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2002, 87 (01) : 90 - 97
  • [4] Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of lymph node involvement in cervix carcinoma
    Bellomi, M
    Bonomo, G
    Landoni, F
    Villa, G
    Leon, ME
    Bocciolone, L
    Maggioni, A
    Viale, G
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2005, 15 (12) : 2469 - 2474
  • [5] BRENNER DE, 1982, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V50, P2323, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19821201)50:11<2323::AID-CNCR2820501117>3.0.CO
  • [6] 2-2
  • [7] PREDICTIVE VALUE OF COMPUTERIZED-TOMOGRAPHY IN THE PRESURGICAL EVALUATION OF PRIMARY-CARCINOMA OF THE CERVIX
    CAMILIEN, L
    GORDON, D
    FRUCHTER, RG
    MAIMAN, M
    BOYCE, JG
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 1988, 30 (02) : 209 - 215
  • [8] Discrimination of metastatic from hyperplastic pelvic lymph nodes in patients with cervical cancer by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging
    Chen, Yun B.
    Liao, Jiang
    Xie, Rong
    Chen, Gui L.
    Chen, Gang
    [J]. ABDOMINAL IMAGING, 2011, 36 (01): : 102 - 109
  • [9] Node-by-node correlation between MR and PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer: diffusion-weighted imaging versus size-based criteria on T2WI
    Choi, Eugene K.
    Kim, Jeong Kon
    Choi, Hyuck Jae
    Park, Seong Ho
    Park, Bum-Woo
    Kim, Namkug
    Kim, Jae Seung
    Im, Ki Chun
    Cho, Gyunggoo
    Cho, Kyoung-Sik
    [J]. EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2009, 19 (08) : 2024 - 2032
  • [10] Comparison of the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the presurgical detection of lymph node metastases in patients with uterine cervical carcinoma - A prospective study
    Choi, HJ
    Roh, JW
    Seo, SS
    Lee, S
    Kim, JY
    Kim, SK
    Kang, KW
    Lee, JS
    Jeong, JY
    Park, SY
    [J]. CANCER, 2006, 106 (04) : 914 - 922