TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic value of 3.0 T versus 1.5 T MRI in staging prostate cancer
T2 - systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Virarkar, Mayur
AU - Szklaruk, Janio
AU - Diab, Radwan
AU - Bassett, Roland
AU - Bhosale, Priya
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Pol J Radiol 2022.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in the staging of prostate cancer. Material and methods: English-language studies on the diagnostic accuracy of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging published through May 2020 were searched for in relevant databases. The focus was on studies in which both 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI were performed in the study population, to reduce interstudy heterogeneity. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were determined for 3.0 T and for 1.5 T along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Out of 8 studies identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria. 3.0 T (n = 160) had a pooled sensitivity of 69.5% (95% CI: 56.4-80.1%) and a pooled specificity of 48.8% (95% CI: 6.0-93.4%), while 1.5 T (n = 139) had a pooled sensitivity of 70.6% (95% CI: 55.0-82.5%; p = 0.91) and a pooled specificity of 41.7% (95% CI: 6.2-88.6%; p = 0.88). The pooled DOR for 3.0 T was 3 (95% CI: 0-26.0%), while the pooled DOR for 1.5 T was 2 (95% CI: 0-18.0%), which was not a significant difference (p = 0.89). Conclusions: 3.0 T has slightly better diagnostic performance than 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging (3 vs. 2), although without statistical significance. Our findings suggest the need for larger, randomized trials directly comparing 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer.
AB - Purpose: To compare the diagnostic performance of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in the staging of prostate cancer. Material and methods: English-language studies on the diagnostic accuracy of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging published through May 2020 were searched for in relevant databases. The focus was on studies in which both 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI were performed in the study population, to reduce interstudy heterogeneity. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were determined for 3.0 T and for 1.5 T along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Out of 8 studies identified, 4 met the inclusion criteria. 3.0 T (n = 160) had a pooled sensitivity of 69.5% (95% CI: 56.4-80.1%) and a pooled specificity of 48.8% (95% CI: 6.0-93.4%), while 1.5 T (n = 139) had a pooled sensitivity of 70.6% (95% CI: 55.0-82.5%; p = 0.91) and a pooled specificity of 41.7% (95% CI: 6.2-88.6%; p = 0.88). The pooled DOR for 3.0 T was 3 (95% CI: 0-26.0%), while the pooled DOR for 1.5 T was 2 (95% CI: 0-18.0%), which was not a significant difference (p = 0.89). Conclusions: 3.0 T has slightly better diagnostic performance than 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer staging (3 vs. 2), although without statistical significance. Our findings suggest the need for larger, randomized trials directly comparing 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI in prostate cancer.
KW - 1.5 T
KW - 3.0 T
KW - meta-analysis
KW - prostate cancer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135635763&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85135635763&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5114/pjr.2022.118685
DO - 10.5114/pjr.2022.118685
M3 - Article
C2 - 35979151
AN - SCOPUS:85135635763
SN - 1733-134X
VL - 87
SP - e421-e421
JO - Polish Journal of Radiology
JF - Polish Journal of Radiology
IS - 1
ER -