Comparative studies of radiolabeled choline positron emission tomography, histology of primary tumor and other imaging modalities in prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引：7

作者：

Evangelista L. ^{[1
]}

Cervino A.R. ^{[1
]}

Burei M. ^{[1
]}

Gregianin M. ^{[1
]}

Saladini G. ^{[1
]}

Marzola M.C. ^{[2
]}

Chondrogianis S. ^{[2
]}

Rubello D. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine Unit, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV-IRCCS, 35128 Padua, Via Gattamelata

[2] Department of Nuclear Medicine, Misericordia Hospital of Rovigo, Rovigo

来源：

Clinical and Translational Imaging | 2013年 / 1卷 / 2期

关键词：

Comparative studies; Meta-analysis; MRI; Prostate cancer; Radiolabeled choline PET;

D O I：

10.1007/s40336-013-0016-0

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the diagnostic performance of 18F/11C-labeled choline positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (CT) in the detection of prostate cancer and its metastases in comparison with histology of primary prostate cancer, other tracers and other imaging modalities. A PubMed and Web of Knowledge search was carried out to select English language articles, published before October 2012, dealing with the diagnostic performance of 18F- and 11C-labeled choline PET in the detection of prostate cancer in both staging and restaging, comparing it with histology of primary tumor, other imaging modalities and other tracers. Articles were included only if absolute numbers of true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative test results were available or derivable from the text. Reviews, clinical reports, and editorial articles were excluded. We re-analyzed all complete studies, performing qualitative and quantitative analyses. For the period 2003 to October 2012, we found 40 complete articles that critically evaluated the role of radiolabeled choline PET in comparison with histology of primary prostate cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT or other imaging modalities in prostate cancer patients. A meta-analysis was carried out on eight selected studies, comprising a total of 276 analyzed patients. The meta-analysis gave a pooled sensitivity of 62.6 % (95 % CI: 54-70.6) vs. 59.7 % (95 % CI: 51.1-67.9), and a pooled specificity of 76.3 % (95 % CI: 65.4-85.1) vs 76.1 % (95 % CI: 65.9-84.6) for radiolabeled choline PET/CT as compared to MRI for the detection of the primary lesion; a pooled sensitivity of 72 % (95 % CI: 66.9-76.6), and a pooled specificity of 61.6 % (95 % CI: 55.1-67.7) for the identification of the primary tumor in comparison with step section histopathology, and finally a pooled sensitivity of 65.1 % (95 % CI: 53.8-75.2) for radiolabeled choline PET/CT vs 39.8 (95 % CI: 29.2-51.1) for 18F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of prostate cancer metastases. Heterogeneity ranged between 0.0 and 94.0 %. The use of radiolabeled choline PET for the detection of primary prostate cancer may be unnecessary. On the contrary, radiolabeled choline PET and PET/CT are useful techniques in the detection of loco-regional and distant metastases in prostate cancer patients, being more sensitive than other tracers and other imaging modalities in any given clinical scenario. © 2013 Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

引用

页码：99 / 109

页数：10

共 50 条

[1]

Williams S.G., Millar J.L., Dally M.J., Sia S., Miles W., Duchesne G.M., What defines intermediate-risk prostate cancer? Variability in published prognostic models, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 58, pp. 11-18, (2004)

[2]

Oesterling J.E., Martin S.K., Bergstralh E.J., Lowe F.C., The use of prostate-specific antigen in staging patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, Jama, 269, pp. 57-60, (1993)

[3]

Platt J.F., Bree R.L., Schwab R.E., The accuracy of CT in the staging of carcinoma of the prostate, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 149, pp. 315-318, (1987)

[4]

Engeler C.E., Wasseman N.F., Zhang G., Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography. Weaknesses and new perspectives, Urology, 40, pp. 346-350, (1992)

[5]

Heidenreich A.H., Bolla M., Joniau S., Mason M.D., Matveev V., Mottet N., Et al., Guidelines on prostate cancer, Eur Urol, (2010)

[6]

Wefer A.E., Hricak H., Vigneron D.B., Coakley F.V., Lu Y., Wefer J., Et al., Sextant localization of prostate cancer: comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology, J Urol, 164, pp. 400-404, (2000)

[7]

Coakley F.V., Kurhanewicz J., Lu Y., Jones K.D., Swanson M.G., Chang S.D., Et al., Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging, Radiology, 223, pp. 91-97, (2002)

[8]

Yu K.K., Hricak H., Alagappan R., Chernoff D.M., Bacchetti P., Zaloudek C.J., Detection of extracapsular extension of prostate carcinoma with endorectal and phased-array coil MR imaging: multivariate feature analysis, Radiology, 202, pp. 697-702, (1997)

[9]

Thornbury J.R., Ornestein D., Choyke P.L., Langlotz C.P., Weinreb J.C., Prostate cancer: what is the future role for imaging?, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 176, pp. 17-21, (2001)

[10]

Liu I.J., Zafar M.B., Lai Y.H., Segall G.M., Terris M.K., Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer, Urology, 57, pp. 108-111, (2001)

← 1 2 3 4 5 →