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
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 May 16;7(1):1949.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02187-0.

Accuracy of shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Accuracy of shear wave elastography for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis

Liang Sang et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Many studies have established the high diagnostic accuracy of shear wave elastography (SWE) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa); however, its utility remains a subject of debate. This meta-analysis sought to appraise the overall accuracy of SWE for the detection of PCa. A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) databases was conducted. In all of the included studies, the diagnostic accuracy of SWE was compared with that of histopathology, which was used as a standard. Data were pooled, and the sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated to estimate the accuracy of SWE. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of PCa by SWE were 0.844 (95% confidence interval: 0.696-0.927) and 0.860 (0.792-0.908), respectively. The AUC was 0.91 (0.89-0.94), the PLR was 6.017 (3.674-9.853), and the NLR was 0.182 (0.085-0.389). The DOR was 33.069 (10.222-106.982). Thus, SWE exhibited high accuracy for the detection of PCa using histopathology as a diagnostic standard. Moreover, SWE may reduce the number of core biopsies needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Literature search and selection scheme.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plots of the diagnostic accuracy of SWE in PCa. A = Sensitivity; B = Specificity; C = Positive likelihood ratio; D = Negative likelihood ratio; E = Diagnostic odds ratio; CI = Confidence interval; LR = Likelihood ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for SWE in the diagnosis of PCa for all studies. AUC = Area under the curve.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Result of Bayesian analyses showing the pre- and post-test likelihoods for PCa detection. The pre-test probability is the probability of a PCa episode being detected without taking SWE into account. The post-test probability takes into account the results of SWE. LR = Likelihood ratio.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Funnel plot for the evaluation of potential publication bias. Each solid circle represents a study in the meta-analysis. The line is the regression line.

References

    1. Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2011;61:69–90. - PubMed
    1. Bjurlin MA, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. The Journal of urology. 2013;189:2039–2046. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.072. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rodriguez LV, Terris MK. Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound. Current opinion in urology. 2000;10:111–116. doi: 10.1097/00042307-200003000-00011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parker KJ, Huang SR, Musulin RA, Lerner RM. Tissue response to mechanical vibrations for “sonoelasticity imaging”. Ultrasound in medicine & biology. 1990;16:241–246. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(90)90003-U. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Salomon G, et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. European urology. 2008;54:1354–1362. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.035. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types