Affiliation:
1. Division of Imaging Sciences and Technology, School of Medicine, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK
2. Radiology Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
3. Department of Pathology, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD9 1SY, UK
4. School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK
Abstract
The present study aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of different ultrasound scanning technologies in the detection of prostate cancer. A systematic search was conducted using the Cochrane Guidelines for Screening and Diagnostic Tests. We performed a systematic search in the international databases PubMed, Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane Library. Searches were designed to find all studies that evaluated Micro-US, mpUS, SWE and CEUS as the main detection modalities for prostate cancer. This study was registered with Research Registry of systematic review and meta-analysis. The QUADAS-2 tool was utilized to perform quality assessment and bias analysis. The literature search generated 1376 studies. Of these, 320 studies were screened for eligibility, with 1056 studies being excluded. Overall, 26 studies with a total of 6370 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity for grayscale, CEUS, SWE, Micro-US and mpUS modalities were 0.66 (95% CI 0.54–0.73) 0.73 (95% CI 0.58–0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.75–0.90), 0.85 (95% CI 0.76–0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.71–1.03), respectively. Moreover, the pooled specificity for grayscale, CEUS, SWE, Micro-US and mpUS modalities were 0.56 (95% CI 0.21–0.90), 0.78 (95% CI 0.67–0.88), 0.76 (95% CI 0.65–0.88), 0.43 (95% CI 0.28–0.59) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.54–0.81), respectively. In terms of sensitivity, substantial heterogeneity between studies was detected (I2 = 72%, p = 0.000 < 0.05). In relation to specificity, extreme heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 93%, p = 0.000 < 0.05). Some studies proved that advanced ultrasound modalities such as mpUS, Micro-US, shear-wave elastography, contrast enhanced and micro-ultrasound are promising methods for the detection of prostate cancer.
Reference64 articles.
1. Cancer statistics;Siegel;CA Cancer J. Clin.,2022
2. Screening for prostate cancer;Ilic;Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.,2013
3. Quantitative ultrasound shear wave elastography (USWE)-measured tissue stiffness correlates with PIRADS scoring of MRI and Gleason score on whole-mount histopathology of prostate cancer: Implications for ultrasound image-guided targeting approach;Ageeli;Insights into Imaging,2021
4. Lumbreras, B., Parker, L.A., Caballero-Romeu, J.P., Gómez-Pérez, L., Puig-García, M., López-Garrigós, M., García, N., and Hernández-Aguado, I. (2023). Variables Associated with False-Positive PSA Results: A Cohort Study with Real-World Data. Cancers, 15.
5. Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA)-Based Population Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Evidence-Based Analysis;Pron;Ont. Heal. Technol. Assess. Ser.,2015