| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evidence-based Practice |
1 From the Department of Radiology (S.B., J.S.) and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (P.M.M.B., A.H.Z.), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (M.S.v.L.); Departments of Nuclear Medicine and PET Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (E.F.I.C.); and Department of Radiology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, the Netherlands (M.E.J.P.). Received December 6, 2004; revision requested January 10, 2005; revision received January 24; accepted February 1. Supported by a grant from the Dutch Order of Medical Specialists. Address correspondence to S.B. (e-mail: s.bipat{at}amc.uva.nl).
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to obtain sensitivity estimates of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for detection of colorectal liver metastases on per-patient and per-lesion bases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CANCERLIT databases and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant original articles published from January 1990 to December 2003. Criteria for inclusion of articles were as follows: Articles were reported in the English, German, or French language; CT, MR imaging, or FDG PET was performed to identify and characterize colorectal liver metastases; histopathologic analysis (surgery, biopsy, or autopsy), intraoperative observation (manual palpatation, intraoperative ultrasonography [US]), and/or follow-up US was the reference standard; and data were sufficient for calculation of true-positive or false-negative values. A random-effects linear regression model was used to obtain sensitivity estimates in assessment of liver metastases.
RESULTS: Of 165 identified relevant articles, 61 fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Sensitivity estimates on a per-patient basis for nonhelical CT, helical CT, 1.5-T MR imaging, and FDG PET were 60.2%, 64.7%, 75.8%, and 94.6%, respectively; FDG PET was the most accurate modality. On a per-lesion basis, sensitivity estimates for nonhelical CT, helical CT, 1.0-T MR imaging, 1.5-T MR imaging, and FDG PET were 52.3%, 63.8%, 66.1%, 64.4%, and 75.9%, respectively; nonhelical CT had lowest sensitivity. Estimates of gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging and superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO)–enhanced MR imaging were significantly better, compared with nonenhanced MR imaging (P = .019 and P < .001, respectively) and with helical CT with 45 g of iodine or less (P = .02 and P < .001, respectively). For lesions of 1 cm or larger, SPIO-enhanced MR imaging was the most accurate modality (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: FDG PET had significantly higher sensitivity on a per-patient basis, compared with that of the other modalities, but not on a per-lesion basis. Sensitivity estimates for MR imaging with contrast agent were significantly superior to those for helical CT with 45 g of iodine or less.
© RSNA, 2005
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. H. Hamza, J. B. Reitsma, and T. Stijnen Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Studies: A Comparison of Random Intercept, Normal-Normal, and Binomial-Normal Bivariate Summary ROC Approaches Med Decis Making, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 639 - 649. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. M. Scott, D. H. Gunawardana, B. Kelley, J. G. Stuckey, A. J. Byrne, J. E. Ramshaw, and M. J. Fulham PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study J. Nucl. Med., September 1, 2008; 49(9): 1451 - 1457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Fletcher, B. Djulbegovic, H. P. Soares, B. A. Siegel, V. J. Lowe, G. H. Lyman, R. E. Coleman, R. Wahl, J. C. Paschold, N. Avril, et al. Recommendations on the Use of 18F-FDG PET in Oncology J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2008; 49(3): 480 - 508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. A. Catalano, A. H. Singh, R. N. Uppot, P. F. Hahn, C. R. Ferrone, and D. V. Sahani Vascular and Biliary Variants in the Liver: Implications for Liver Surgery RadioGraphics, March 1, 2008; 28(2): 359 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L.F. de Geus-Oei, H. W. M. van Laarhoven, E. P. Visser, R. Hermsen, B. A. van Hoorn, Y. J. L. Kamm, P. F. M. Krabbe, F. H. M. Corstens, C. J. A. Punt, and W. J. G. Oyen Chemotherapy response evaluation with FDG-PET in patients with colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., February 1, 2008; 19(2): 348 - 352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Herbertson, S. T. Lee, N. Tebbutt, and A. M. Scott The expanding role of PET technology in the management of patients with colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., November 1, 2007; 18(11): 1774 - 1781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Vogt, G. Antoch, P. Veit, L. S. Freudenberg, N. Blechschmid, O. Diersch, A. Bockisch, J. Barkhausen, and H. Kuehl Morphologic and Functional Changes in Nontumorous Liver Tissue After Radiofrequency Ablation in an In Vivo Model: Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT, MRI, Ultrasound, and CT J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2007; 48(11): 1836 - 1844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Israel and A. Kuten Early Detection of Cancer Recurrence: 18F-FDG PET/CT Can Make a Difference in Diagnosis and Patient Care J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 28S - 35S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. de Geus-Oei, B Wiering, P. Krabbe, T. Ruers, C. Punt, and W. Oyen FDG-PET for prediction of survival of patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma Ann. Onc., November 1, 2006; 17(11): 1650 - 1655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Charnsangavej, B. Clary, Y. Fong, A. Grothey, T. M. Pawlik, and M. A. Choti Selection of Patients for Resection of Hepatic Colorectal Metastases: Expert Consensus Statement Ann. Surg. Oncol., October 1, 2006; 13(10): 1261 - 1268. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. C. Chapman, P. M. Hoff, and S. M. Strasberg Selection of Patients for Resection of Hepatic Colorectal Metastases: Expert Consensus Statement by Charnsangavej et al. Ann. Surg. Oncol., October 1, 2006; 13(10): 1269 - 1270. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Benoist, A. Brouquet, C. Penna, C. Julie, M. El Hajjam, S. Chagnon, E. Mitry, P. Rougier, and B. Nordlinger Complete Response of Colorectal Liver Metastases After Chemotherapy: Does It Mean Cure? J. Clin. Oncol., August 20, 2006; 24(24): 3939 - 3945. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O J Garden, M Rees, G J Poston, D Mirza, M Saunders, J Ledermann, J N Primrose, and R W Parks Guidelines for resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases Gut, August 1, 2006; 55(suppl_3): iii1 - iii8. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. O. Oktar, C. Yucel, T. Demirogullari, A. Uner, M. Benekli, G. Erbas, and H. Ozdemir Doppler sonographic evaluation of hemodynamic changes in colorectal liver metastases relative to liver size. J. Ultrasound Med., May 1, 2006; 25(5): 575 - 582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
