Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 15;8(11):4532-4547.
eCollection 2016.

Comparison of MRI, CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of local and metastatic of nasopharyngeal carcinomas: an updated meta analysis of clinical studies

Wang-Sheng Chen  1 , Jian-Jun Li  1 , Lan Hong  2 , Zeng-Bao Xing  1 , Fen Wang  3 , Chang-Qing Li  1
Affiliations

Comparison of MRI, CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of local and metastatic of nasopharyngeal carcinomas: an updated meta analysis of clinical studies

Wang-Sheng Chen et al. Am J Transl Res. .

Abstract

Background: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of MRI, CT and FDG PET/CT in TNM stage of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients (NPC).

Methods: Through a search of studies from 1996 to April 2015, pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves and Q*-index were calculated.

Results: Totally 23 studies were included for analysis. In T stage, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of MRI were 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.80), 86.85 (16.36-461.06) and 0.9213 (SE 0.0372) respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of CT were 0.84 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.88), 0.80 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.88), 6.32 (1.17 to 34.02) and 0.7215 (SE 0.054) respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of FDG PET/CT were 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.91), 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and 0.8673 (SE 0.0311). In N stage, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of MRI were 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90), 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), 93.68 (23.21-379.69) and 0.9153 (SE 0.099) respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of CT were 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95), 0.93 (0.76-0.99), 93.81 (22.39-393.03) and 0.8872 (SE 0.0520) respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR and SROC of FDG PET/CT were 0.88 (95% CI 0.85-0.90), 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), 93.88 (23.21-379.69) and 0.9153 (SE 0.0299) respectively. In M stage, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 0.53 (95% CI 0.35-0.70) and 0.99 (95% 0.95-1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CT were 0.80 (95% CI 0.44-0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97) respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and SROC of FDG PET/CT were 0.82 (95% 0.74-0.88), 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) and 0.9002 (SE 0.075) respectively.

Conclusion: The analysis suggested that MRI had good accuracy in diagnosis of T stage. Whereas CT is currently a good performance in diagnosis of N stage, FDG PET/CT shows good accuracy in diagnosis of M stage.

Keywords: CT; FDG PET/CT; MRI; Meta-analysis; nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study selection.
Figure 2
Figure 2
For T Classification by MRI: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio; D. Summary receiver operating Characteristic (SROC) curve with Q*-index.
Figure 3
Figure 3
For T Classification by CT: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio; D. Summary receiver operating Characteristic (SROC) curve with Q*-index.
Figure 4
Figure 4
For T Classification by FDG PET/CT: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio; D. Summary receiver operating Characteristic (SROC) curve with Q*-index.
Figure 5
Figure 5
For N Classification by MRI: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio; D. Summary receiver operating Characteristic (SROC) curve with Q*-index.
Figure 6
Figure 6
For N Classification by CT: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio; D. Summary receiver operating Characteristic (SROC) curve with Q*-index.
Figure 7
Figure 7
For N Classification by FDG PET/CT: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio; D. Summary receiver operating Characteristic (SROC) curve with Q*-index.
Figure 8
Figure 8
For M Classification by MRI: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio.
Figure 9
Figure 9
For M Classification by CT: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio.
Figure 10
Figure 10
For M Classification by FDG PET/CT: A. Pooled sensitivity; B. Pooled specitficity; C. Pooled diagnostic odds ratio; D. Summary receiver operating Characteristic (SROC) curve with Q*-index.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90. - PubMed
    1. Sham JS, Choy D, Choi PH. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: the significance of neck node involvement in relation to the pattern of distant failure. Br J Radiol. 1990;63:108–13. - PubMed
    1. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Green FL, Trotti AM 3rd. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2009.
    1. NCCN guideline for treatment of cancer by site. Head and neck cancer. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site.
    1. Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet. 1997;350:85–6. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources