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 24;12(5):e0177462.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177462. eCollection 2017.

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

Marcelo Aldrighi Moreira  1   2 , Luiza Silveira Lessa  1   3 , Francieli Regina Bortoli  4 , Abigail Lopes  1   2 , Eduardo Picolo Xavier  2 , Renan Antonio Ceretta  3 , Fernanda Guglielmi Faustini Sônego  3 , Cristiane Damiani Tomasi  1 , Patricia Duarte Simões Pires  3 , Luciane Bisognin Ceretta  1   2   3 , Ingrid Dalira Schweigert Perry  1 , Priscyla Waleska Simões  1   2   3   5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Marcelo Aldrighi Moreira et al. PLoS One. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Study flow diagram.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Measures of diagnostic performance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int j cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–917. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25516 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Warnakulasuriya S. Global epidemiology of oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Oral oncol. 2009;45(4–5):309–16. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.06.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mignogna MD, Fedele S, Lo Russo L. The World Cancer Report and the burden of oral cancer. Eur j cancer prev. 2004;13(2):139–42. - PubMed
    1. Fontes KBFC, Cunha KSG, Rodrigues FR, Silva LE, Dias EP. Concordance between cytopathology and incisional biopsy in the diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Braz oral res. 2013;27(2):122–7. - PubMed
    1. Neville BW, Day TA. Oral cancer and precancerous lesions. Ca cancer j clin. 2002;52(4):195–215. - PubMed

MeSH terms