4.5 Article

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

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 5, Pages 1002-1006

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.112

Keywords

Lymph nodes; Ovarian cancer; Computer tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Positron emission tomography; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available