Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography and conventional imaging modalities for initial staging of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer : a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chow, Kit Mun ; So, Wei Zheng ; Lee, Han Jie ; Lee, Alvin ; Yap, Dominic Wei Ting ; Takwoingi, Yemisi ; Tay, Kae Jack ; Tuan, Jeffrey ; Thang, Sue Ping ; Lam, Winnie ... show 5 more
Chow, Kit Mun
So, Wei Zheng
Lee, Han Jie
Lee, Alvin
Yap, Dominic Wei Ting
Takwoingi, Yemisi
Tay, Kae Jack
Tuan, Jeffrey
Thang, Sue Ping
Lam, Winnie
Citations
Altmetric:
Affiliation
Other Contributors
Publication date
2023-04-07
Subject
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Context: Whether prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) should replace conventional imaging modalities (CIM) for initial staging of intermediate-high risk prostate cancer (PCa) requires definitive evidence on their relative diagnostic abilities.
Objective: To perform head-to-head comparisons of PSMA-PET and CIM including multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), computed tomography (CT) and bone scan (BS) for upfront staging of tumour, nodal, and bone metastasis.
Evidence acquisition: A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to December 2021. Only studies in which patients underwent both PSMA-PET and CIM and imaging was referenced against histopathology or composite reference standards were included. Quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) checklist and its extension for comparative reviews (QUADAS-C). Pairwise comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity of PSMA-PET versus CIM were performed by adding imaging modality as a covariate to bivariate mixed-effects meta-regression models. The likelihood ratio test was applied to determine whether statistically significant differences existed.
Evidence synthesis: A total of 31 studies (2431 patients) were included. PSMA-PET/MRI was more sensitive than mpMRI for detection of extra-prostatic extension (78.7% versus 52.9%) and seminal vesicle invasion (66.7% versus 51.0%). For nodal staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than mpMRI (73.7% versus 38.9%, 97.5% versus 82.6%) and CT (73.2% versus 38.5%, 97.8% versus 83.6%). For bone metastasis staging, PSMA-PET was more sensitive and specific than BS with or without single-photon emission computerised tomography (98.0% versus 73.0%, 96.2% versus 79.1%). A time interval between imaging modalities >1 month was identified as a source of heterogeneity across all nodal staging analyses.
Conclusions: Direct comparisons revealed that PSMA-PET significantly outperforms CIM, which suggests that PSMA-PET should be used as a first-line approach for the initial staging of PCa.
Patient summary: We reviewed direct comparisons of the ability of a scan method called PSMA-PET (prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography) and current imaging methods to detect the spread of prostate cancer outside the prostate gland. We found that PSMA-PET is more accurate for detection of the spread of prostate cancer to adjacent tissue, nearby lymph nodes, and bones.
Citation
Eur Urol . 2023 Apr 7;S0302-2838(23)02640-4
Type
Article
