scholarly journals Apparent diffusion coefficient in extraprostatic extension of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol Volume 11 ◽  
pp. 3125-3137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koudi Bai ◽  
Yuan Sun ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
Lanlan Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Apparent Diffusion ◽  
Extraprostatic Extension

scholarly journals Discrimination between clinical significant and insignificant prostate cancer with Apparent diffusion coefficient – A systematic review and meta analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Jonas Meyer ◽  
Andreas Wienke ◽  
Alexey Surov
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Adc Value ◽  
Apparent Diffusion ◽  
Adc Values ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Insignificant Prostate Cancer

Abstract Background Multiparametric MRI has become a corner stone in diagnosis of prostate cancer (PC). Diffusion weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) can be used to reflect tumor microstructure. The present analysis sought to compare ADC values of clinically insignificant with clinical significant PC based upon a large patient sample. Methods MEDLINE library and SCOPUS databases were screened for the associations between ADC and Gleason score in PC up to May 2019. The primary endpoint of the systematic review was the ADC value of PC groups according to Gleason score. In total 27 studies were suitable for the analysis and included into the present study. The included studies comprised a total of 1633 lesions. Results Clinically relevant PCs (Gleason score 7 and higher) were diagnosed in 1078 cases (66.0%) and insignificant PCs (Gleason score 5 and 6) in 555 cases (34.0%). The pooled mean ADC value of the clinically significant PC was 0.86x10-3 mm2/s [95% CI 0.83-0.90] and the pooled mean value of insignificant PC was 1.1 x10-3 mm2/s [95% CI 1.03-1.18]. Clinical significant PC showed lower ADC values compared to non-significant PC. The pooled ADC values of clinically insignificant PCs were no lower than 0.75 ×10-3 mm2/s. This value may be proposed as a threshold for distinguishing clinically significant from insignificant PCs. Conclusions We evaluated the published literature comparing clinical insignificant with clinically prostate cancer in regard of the Apparent diffusion coefficient values derived from magnetic resonance imaging. We identified that the clinically insignificant prostate cancer have lower ADC values than clinically significant, which may aid in tumor noninvasive tumor characterization in clinical routine.

scholarly journals Apparent diffusion coefficient cannot discriminate metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexey Surov ◽  
Hans-Jonas Meyer ◽  
Maciej Pech ◽  
Maciej Powerski ◽  
Jasan Omari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Apparent Diffusion Coefficient ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adc Value ◽  
Metastatic Lymph Nodes ◽  
Metastatic Lymph ◽  
Apparent Diffusion ◽  
Adc Values

Abstract Background Our aim was to provide data regarding use of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for distinguishing metastatic and non-metastatic lymph nodes (LN) in rectal cancer. Methods MEDLINE library, EMBASE, and SCOPUS database were screened for associations between DWI and metastatic and non-metastatic LN in rectal cancer up to February 2021. Overall, 9 studies were included into the analysis. Number, mean value, and standard deviation of DWI parameters including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of metastatic and non-metastatic LN were extracted from the literature. The methodological quality of the studies was investigated according to the QUADAS-2 assessment. The meta-analysis was undertaken by using RevMan 5.3 software. DerSimonian, and Laird random-effects models with inverse-variance weights were used to account the heterogeneity between the studies. Mean DWI values including 95% confidence intervals were calculated for metastatic and non-metastatic LN. Results ADC values were reported for 1376 LN, 623 (45.3%) metastatic LN, and 754 (54.7%) non-metastatic LN. The calculated mean ADC value (× 10−3 mm2/s) of metastatic LN was 1.05, 95%CI (0.94, 1.15). The calculated mean ADC value of the non-metastatic LN was 1.17, 95%CI (1.01, 1.33). The calculated sensitivity and specificity were 0.81, 95%CI (0.74, 0.89) and 0.67, 95%CI (0.54, 0.79). Conclusion No reliable ADC threshold can be recommended for distinguishing of metastatic and non-metastatic LN in rectal cancer.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document