Premium
Diagnostic value of diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging compared with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for pancreatic malignancy: A meta‐analysis using a hierarchical regression model
Author(s) -
Wu LianMing,
Hu JiaNi,
Hua Jia,
Liu ManJu,
Chen Jie,
Xu JianRong
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07112.x
Subject(s) - medicine , positron emission tomography , nuclear medicine , confidence interval , magnetic resonance imaging , receiver operating characteristic , malignancy , subgroup analysis , pancreatic cancer , meta analysis , radiology , cancer
Abstract Background and Aim: To obtain diagnostic performance of diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the detection of pancreatic malignancy. Methods: We performed a meta‐analysis of all available studies of the diagnostic performance of DWI and PET/CT for pancreatic malignancy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and some other databases were searched for initial studies. We determined sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) using hierarchical regression models. Results: Across 16 studies with 804 patients, PET/CT sensitivity was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82, 0.81) and specificity was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71, 0.91). Overall, LR+ was 5.84 (95% CI, 4.59, 7.42) and LR− was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.17, 0.33). DWI sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.74, 0.92) and specificity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71, 0.98). LR+ was 9.53 (95% CI, 2.41, 37.65) and LR− was 0.17 (95% CI, 0.09, 0.32). In subgroup analysis, the sensitivity of enhanced versus unenhanced PET/CT in the detection of pancreatic cancer was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86, 0.96) versus 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78, 0.90) ( P > 0.05), the specificity 0.88 (95% CI, 0.73, 1.00) versus 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69, 0.94) ( P > 0.05). Conclusion: Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) was highly sensitive and DWI was a highly specific modality in diagnosing patients with pancreatic malignancy. PET/CT and DWI could play different roles in diagnosing pancreatic carcinoma. Enhanced PET/CT seems to be superior to unenhanced PET/CT. Further larger prospective studies are needed to establish its value for diagnosis in pancreatic cancer.