Original investigationAccuracy of MR imaging for staging prostate cancer: A meta-analysis to examine the effect of technologic change1
References (37)
- et al.
Relative merits of MRI, transrectal endosonography and CT in diagnosis and staging of carcinoma of prostate
Urology
(1988) - et al.
Detection and staging of prostatic carcinoma after transurethral resection or open enucleation of the prostate: accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging
J Urol
(1992) - et al.
Use of endorectal surface coil magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer
J Urol
(1993) - et al.
A multivariate analysis of clinical factors predicting for pathological features associated with local failure after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
(1994) - et al.
Accuracy of imaging modalities in staging the local extent of prostate cancer
Urol Clin North Am
(1991) - 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) - et al.
The value of computerized tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging in staging prostatic carcinoma: comparison with the clinical and histological staging
J Urol
(1986) - et al.
Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging in clinically localized prostate cancer: is it accurate?
J Urol
(1996) - et al.
Meta-analysis of diagnostic procedures: a brief overview
Acad Radiol
(1998) - et al.
Use of meta-analysis in the evaluation of imaging systems
Acad Radiol
(1994)
Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate
Radiology
Prostatic disorders: MR imaging at 1.5 T
Radiology
Prostatic carcinoma: staging by clinical assessment, CT, and MR imaging
Radiology
Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial
N Engl J Med
The abnormal prostate: MR imaging at 1.5 T with histopathologic correlation
Radiology
Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil
Radiology
First principles of fast spin echo
Magn Reson Q
Acquiring advanced technology: decision making at twelve medical centers
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
Cited by (62)
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts the presence of prostate cancer in patients with negative prostate biopsy
2015, Actas Urologicas EspanolasHistoscanning has low sensitivity and specificity for seminal vesicle invasion
2014, UrologyCitation Excerpt :Applying the Partin tables or the Gallina nomogram to our HS results did not improve the model accuracy further (AUC, 0.82 and 0.78). Moreover, for local staging, a sensitivity and specificity of 71%-74% is reported for MRI.22-24 Ren et al25 distinguished an AUC for detecting SVI in MRI of 0.77.
Preoperative endorectal MRI in prostate cancer: A monocentric retrospective cohort
2013, Progres en UrologieA systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies
2013, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :Three reviews found that changes in test technology (automation, greater bronchial lavage volume, and higher transducer performance) resulted in higher sensitivity; one review also reported higher specificity [14], one reported lower specificity [23], and the other did not assess the effect on specificity [22]. An additional review found that accuracy was higher in studies that used certain MRI techniques [89]. One DTA study found that sensitivity and overall accuracy were higher with three-dimensional compared with two-dimensional imaging [90], and an experimental study found higher sensitivity and specificity when autofluorescence was performed with high-resolution white light endoscopy compared with without [91].
Prostate Cancer Imaging: What the Urologist Wants to Know
2012, Radiologic Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Two meta-analyses have been conducted to assess the performance and accuracy of MR imaging for staging prostate cancer across studies.122,124 Sonnad and colleagues124 first reported that the summary receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for MR imaging in staging of prostate cancer has a joint maximum sensitivity and specificity of 74%. The larger, more recent meta-analysis found the joint maximum sensitivity and specificity to be similar, at 71%.122
Bivariate meta-analysis of predictive values of diagnostic tests can be an alternative to bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity
2012, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- 1
From the Consortium for Health Outcomes, Innovation and Cost-Effectiveness Studies (CHOICES), Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, 2110G Taubman Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0346 (S.S.S.); and the Departments of Radiology, Epidemiology, and Computer and Information Science (C.P.L.) and the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (J.S.S.), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.