Dataset Information

Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging accuracy for diagnosis of oral cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To establish the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an auxiliary means for the diagnosis of oral cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

An exhaustive search of publications from 1986 to 2016 was performed of Medline, Embase and Cochrane (and related databases), including grey literature. Primary diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed oral cancer (target condition) using MRI (index test) were included. Diagnostic threshold, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed. A meta-analysis was performed using Meta-DiSc® v. 1.4 software.

Results

A total of 24 primary studies were assessed, comprising 1,403 oral cancer lesions. Nine studies used diffusion-weighted MRI, with a diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 30.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.7-74.3) and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.917 (95% CI: 0.915-0.918); seven studies used dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, with a DOR of 48.1 (95%CI: 22.4-103.2) and AUC of 0.936 (95% CI: 0.934-0.937); and 13 studies used traditional MRI, with a DOR of 23.9 (95%CI: 13.2-43.3) and AUC of 0.894 (95% CI: 0.894-0.895). Meta-regression analysis indicated that the magnetic field strength may have influenced the heterogeneity of the results obtained (p = 0.0233) using traditional MRI. Sensitivity analysis revealed a discrete reduction of inconsistency in some subgroups.

Conclusion

The three types of MRI assessed exhibited satisfactory accuracy compared to biopsy. Considering the relevance of early treatment and screening and that better health care results in improved survival rates and quality of life for oral cancer patients, we suggest the use of MRI as a part of the pre-treatment and monitoring protocol at public health services.

SUBMITTER: Moreira MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5443513 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging accuracy for diagnosis of oral cancer.

Moreira Marcelo Aldrighi MA Lessa Luiza Silveira LS Bortoli Francieli Regina FR Lopes Abigail A Xavier Eduardo Picolo EP Ceretta Renan Antonio RA Sônego Fernanda Guglielmi Faustini FGF Tomasi Cristiane Damiani CD Pires Patricia Duarte Simões PDS Ceretta Luciane Bisognin LB Perry Ingrid Dalira Schweigert IDS Waleska Simões Priscyla P

PloS one 20170524 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To establish the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an auxiliary means for the diagnosis of oral cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>An exhaustive search of publications from 1986 to 2016 was performed of Medline, Embase and Cochrane (and related databases), including grey literature. Primary diagnostic accuracy studies that assessed oral cancer (target condition) using MRI (index test) were included. Diagnostic threshold ...[more]

PMID: 28542622

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIntestinal endometriosis is considered the most severe form of deep endometriosis, the rectosigmoid being involved in about 90% of cases of bowel infiltration. Transvaginal sonography (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been used for noninvasive diagnosis and preoperative mapping of rectosigmoid endometriosis (RE), but no consensus has been reached so far regarding which method is the most accurate in this setting.ObjectiveWe aimed at performing a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of TVS versus MRI in the diagnosis of RE in a same population.MethodsA systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases, as well the reference lists of retrieved articles, through February 2019. We included all cross-sectional studies that evaluated the accuracy of TVS versus MRI in the diagnosis of RE within a same sample of subjects and that used surgical findings with histological confirmation as the gold standard. The QUADAS-2 instrument was used to evaluate study quality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (LR+), and negative likelihood ratios (LR-) for the diagnosis of RE were calculated. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017064378.ResultsEight studies (n = 1132) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- values of MRI for RE were 90% (95% CI, 87-92%), 96% (95% CI, 94-97%), 17.26 (95% CI, 3.57-83.50), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.23); values of TVS were 90% [95% CI, 87-92%], 96% (95% CI, 94-97%), 20.66 (95% CI, 8.71-49.00) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08-0.20), respectively. Areas under the S-ROC curves (AUC) showed no statistically significant differences between MRI (AUC = 0.948) and TVS (AUC = 0.930) in the diagnosis of RE (P = 0.13). Moreover, considering the average prevalence among the studies of 47.3%, both methods demonstrated similarly high positive post-test probabilities (93.9% for TVS and 94.8% for MRI), and the combined use of them yielded a post-test probability of 99.6%.ConclusionMRI and TVS have similarly high accuracy and positive post-test probabilities in the noninvasive diagnosis of RE. Combination of MRI and TVS may increase even further the positive post-test probabilities to near 100%.

Project description:ObjectiveProstate lesions detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are classified for their malignant potential according to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS™2). In this study, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI with and without gadolinium, with emphasis on the added diagnostic value of the dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE).Materials and methodsThe study was retrospective for 286 prostate lesions / 213 eligible patients, n = 116/170, and 49/59% malignant for the peripheral (Pz) and transitional zone (Tz), respectively. A stereotactic MRI-guided prostate biopsy served as the histological ground truth. All patients received a mpMRI with DCE. The influence of DCE in the prediction of malignancy was analyzed by blinded assessment of the imaging protocol without DCE and the DCE separately.ResultsSignificant (CSPca) and insignificant (IPca) prostate cancers were evaluated separately to enhance the potential effects of the DCE in the detection of CSPca. The Receiver Operating Characteristics Area Under Curve (ROC-AUC), sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Spe) of PIRADS-without-DCE in the Pz was 0.70/0.47/0.86 for all cancers (IPca and CSPca merged) and 0.73/0.54/0.82 for CSPca. PIRADS-with-DCE for the same patients showed ROC-AUC/Se/Spe of 0.70/0.49/0.86 for all Pz cancers and 0.69/0.54/0.81 for CSPca in the Pz, respectively, p>0.05 chi-squared test. Similar results for the Tz, AUC/Se/Spe for PIRADS-without-DCE was 0.75/0.61/0.79 all cancers and 0.67/0.54/0.71 for CSPca, not influenced by DCE (0.66/0.47/0.81 for all Tz cancers and 0.61/0.39/0.75 for CSPca in Tz). The added Se and Spe of DCE for the detection of CSPca was 88/34% and 78/33% in the Pz and Tz, respectively.ConclusionDCE showed no significant added diagnostic value and lower specificity for the prediction of CSPca compared to the non-enhanced sequences. Our results support that gadolinium might be omitted without mitigating the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI for prostate cancer.

Project description:BackgroundIn the recent years, machine learning algorithms have been more widely and increasingly applied in biomedical fields. In particular, their application has been drawing more attention in the field of psychiatry, for instance, as diagnostic tests/tools for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, given their complexity and potential clinical implications, there is an ongoing need for further research on their accuracy.ObjectiveThis study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence for the accuracy of machine learning algorithms in diagnosing ASD.MethodsThe following databases were searched on November 28, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete (with Open Dissertations), PsycINFO, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore Digital Library. Studies that used a machine learning algorithm partially or fully for distinguishing individuals with ASD from control subjects and provided accuracy measures were included in our analysis. The bivariate random effects model was applied to the pooled data in a meta-analysis. A subgroup analysis was used to investigate and resolve the source of heterogeneity between studies. True-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative values from individual studies were used to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity values, draw Summary Receiver Operating Characteristics curves, and obtain the area under the curve (AUC) and partial AUC (pAUC).ResultsA total of 43 studies were included for the final analysis, of which a meta-analysis was performed on 40 studies (53 samples with 12,128 participants). A structural magnetic resonance imaging (sMRI) subgroup meta-analysis (12 samples with 1776 participants) showed a sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76-0.89), a specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.74-0.91), and AUC/pAUC of 0.90/0.83. A functional magnetic resonance imaging/deep neural network subgroup meta-analysis (5 samples with 1345 participants) showed a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.62-0.75), specificity of 0.66 (95% CI 0.61-0.70), and AUC/pAUC of 0.71/0.67.ConclusionsThe accuracy of machine learning algorithms for diagnosis of ASD was considered acceptable by few accuracy measures only in cases of sMRI use; however, given the many limitations indicated in our study, further well-designed studies are warranted to extend the potential use of machine learning algorithms to clinical settings.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018117779; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=117779.

Dataset Information

Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging accuracy for diagnosis of oral cancer.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging accuracy for diagnosis of oral cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets