OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of imaging technologies for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated PSA-values or suspected findings on clinical examination.
FREE DAILY AND WEEKLY NEWSLETTERS OFFERED BY CONTENT OF INTEREST
Did you find this article relevant? Subscribe to UroToday-GUOncToday!
The fields of GU Oncology and Urology are advancing rapidly including new treatments, enrolling clinical trials, screening and surveillance recommendations along with updated guidelines. Join us as one of our subscribers who rely on UroToday as their must-read source for the latest news and data on drugs. Sign up today for blogs, video conversations, conference highlights and abstracts from peer-review publications by disease and condition delivered to your inbox and read on the go.
METHODS: The databases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CRD HTA/DARE/NHS EED and EconLit were searched until June 2013. Pre-determined inclusion criteria were used to select full text articles. Risk of bias in individual studies was rated according to QUADAS or AMSTAR. Abstracts and full text articles were assessed independently by two reviewers. The performance of diagnostic imaging was compared with systematic biopsies (reference standard) and sensitivity and specificity were calculated.
RESULTS: The literature search yielded 5141 abstracts, which were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Of these 4852 were excluded since they did not meet the inclusion criteria. 288 articles were reviewed in full text for quality assessment. Six studies, three using MRI and three using transrectal ultrasound were included. All were rated as high risk of bias. Relevant studies on PET/CT were not identified.
CONCLUSION: Despite clinical use, there is insufficient evidence regarding the accuracy of imaging technologies for detecting cancer in patients with suspected prostate cancer using TRUS guided systematic biopsies as reference standard.
Blomqvist L, Carlsson S, Gjertsson P, Heintz E, Hultcrantz M, Mejare I, Andrén O. Are you the author?
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden; Department of Clinical Physiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; The Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment, Stockholm, Sweden; School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; Department of Urology, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Reference: Eur J Radiol. 2014 Sep;83(9):1601-1606.