We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis.
Radiology 2002 September
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare current noninvasive imaging methods (ultrasonography [US], computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance [MR] imaging, and (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG] positron emission tomography [PET]) in the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search and review of article bibliographies and our institutional charts of patients with colorectal cancer identified data with histopathologic correlation or at least 6 months of patient follow-up. Two authors independently abstracted data sets and excluded data without contingency tables or data published more than once. Summary-weighted estimates of sensitivity were obtained and stratified according to specificity of less than 85% or 85% and higher. A covariate analysis was used to evaluate the influence of patient- or study-related factors on sensitivity.
RESULTS: Among 111 data sets, nine US (509 patients), 25 CT (1,747 patients), 11 MR imaging (401 patients), and nine PET (423 patients) data sets met the inclusion criteria. In studies with a specificity higher than 85%, the mean weighted sensitivity was 55% (95% CI: 41, 68) for US, 72% (95% CI: 63, 80) for CT, 76% (95% CI: 57, 91) for MR imaging, and 90% (95% CI: 80, 97) for FDG PET. Results of pairwise comparison between imaging modalities demonstrated a greater sensitivity of FDG PET than US (P =.001), CT (P =.017), and MR imaging (P =.055).
CONCLUSION: At equivalent specificity, FDG PET is the most sensitive noninvasive imaging modality for the diagnosis of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search and review of article bibliographies and our institutional charts of patients with colorectal cancer identified data with histopathologic correlation or at least 6 months of patient follow-up. Two authors independently abstracted data sets and excluded data without contingency tables or data published more than once. Summary-weighted estimates of sensitivity were obtained and stratified according to specificity of less than 85% or 85% and higher. A covariate analysis was used to evaluate the influence of patient- or study-related factors on sensitivity.
RESULTS: Among 111 data sets, nine US (509 patients), 25 CT (1,747 patients), 11 MR imaging (401 patients), and nine PET (423 patients) data sets met the inclusion criteria. In studies with a specificity higher than 85%, the mean weighted sensitivity was 55% (95% CI: 41, 68) for US, 72% (95% CI: 63, 80) for CT, 76% (95% CI: 57, 91) for MR imaging, and 90% (95% CI: 80, 97) for FDG PET. Results of pairwise comparison between imaging modalities demonstrated a greater sensitivity of FDG PET than US (P =.001), CT (P =.017), and MR imaging (P =.055).
CONCLUSION: At equivalent specificity, FDG PET is the most sensitive noninvasive imaging modality for the diagnosis of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app