Comparative sensitivity and specificity of imaging modalities in staging bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 209 Downloads
The detection of lymph node metastases in bladder cancer has a significant impact on treatment decisions. Multiple imaging modalities are available to clinicians including magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and positron emission tomography. We aimed to investigate the utility of alternate imaging modalities on pre-cystectomy imaging in bladder cancer for the detection of lymph node metastases.
We performed systematic search of Web of Science (including MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane libraries in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing lymph node imaging findings with final histopathology were included in our analysis. Sensitivity and specificity data were quantified using patient-based analysis. A true positive was defined as a node-positive patient on imaging and node positive on histopathology. Meta-analysis of studies was performed using a mixed-effects, hierarchical logistic regression model.
Our systematic search identified 35 articles suitable for inclusion. MRI and PET have a higher sensitivity than CT while the specificity of all modalities was similar. The summary MRI sensitivity = 0.60 (95% CI 0.44–0.74) and specificity = 0.91 (95% CI 0.82–0.96). Summary PET/CT sensitivity = 0.56 (95% CI 0.49–0.63) and specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.86–0.95). Summary CT sensitivity = 0.40 (95% CI 0.33–0.49) and specificity = 0.92 (95% CI 0.86–0.95).
MRI and PET/CT provides superior sensitivity compared to CT for detection of positive lymph nodes in bladder cancer prior to cystectomy. There is variability in the accuracy that current imaging modalities achieve across different studies. A number of other factors impact on detection accuracy and these must be considered.
KeywordBladder cancer Transitional cell carcinoma Positron emission tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Computed tomography
JC: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; NP: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; MP: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; BN: data collection, data analysis; DB: manuscript editing; SS: manuscript editing; NL: project development, manuscript editing.
This project received no funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This project did not require formal ethics committee approval.
For this type of study formal ethics approval is not required.
- 1.Alfred Witjes J, Lebret T, Comperat EM, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Bruins HM, Hernandez V, Espinos EL, Dunn J, Rouanne M, Neuzillet Y, Veskimae E, van der Heijden AG, Gakis G, Ribal MJ (2017) Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol 71(3):462–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Zehnder P, Studer UE, Skinner EC, Dorin RP, Cai J, Roth B, Miranda G, Birkhauser F, Stein J, Burkhard FC, Daneshmand S, Thalmann GN, Gill IS, Skinner DG (2011) Super extended versus extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a comparative study. J Urol 186(4):1261–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Kubler H, Opercan K, Schmidt S, Herrmann K, Stollfuss J, Weirich G, Haller B, Gschwend JE, Schwaiger M, Krause BJ, Treiber U (2012) Diagnostic efficacy of 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional computed tomography in lymph node staging of patients with bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 61(5):1031–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Thoeny HC, Triantafyllou M, Birkhaeuser FD, Froehlich JM, Tshering DW, Binser T, Fleischmann A, Vermathen P, Studer UE (2009) Combined ultrasmall superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging reliably detect pelvic lymph node metastases in normal-sized nodes of bladder and prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 55(4):761–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Soubra A, Hayward D, Dahm P, Goldfarb R, Froehlich J, Jha G, Konety BR (2016) The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging bladder cancer: a single-institution study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. World J Urol 34(9):1229–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Ceci F, Bianchi L, Graziani T, Castellucci P, Pultrone C, Eugenio B, Martorana G, Colletti PM, Rubello D, Fanti S, Schiavina R (2015) 11C-choline PET/CT and bladder cancer: lymph node metastasis assessment with pathological specimens as reference standard. Clin Nucl Med 40(2):e124–e128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Brunocilla E, Ceci F, Schiavina R, Castellucci P, Maffione AM, Cevenini M, Bianchi L, Borghesi M, Giunchi F, Fiorentino M, Chondrogiannis S, Colletti PM, Fanti S, Martorana G (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of 11C-choline PET/CT in preoperative lymph node staging of bladder cancer: a systematic comparison with contrast-enhanced CT and histologic findings. Clin Nucl Med 39(5):e308–e312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Chakraborty D, Mittal BR, Kashyap R, Mete UK, Narang V, Das A, Bhattacharya A, Khandelwal N, Mandal AK (2014) Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diagnostic evaluation of carcinoma urinary bladder: comparison with computed tomography. World J Nucl Med 13(1):34–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Goodfellow H, Viney Z, Hughes P, Rankin S, Rottenberg G, Hughes S, Evison F, Dasgupta P, O’Brien T, Khan MS (2014) Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer. BJU Int 114(3):389–395Google Scholar
- 33.Hitier-Berthault M, Ansquer C, Branchereau J, Renaudin K, Bodere F, Bouchot O, Rigaud J (2013) F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a prospective study. Int J Urol 20(8):788–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Horn T, Zahel T, Adt N, Schmid SC, Heck MM, Thalgott MK, Hatzichristodoulou G, Haller B, Autenrieth M, Kubler HR, Gschwend JE, Holzapfel K, Maurer T (2016) Evaluation of computed tomography for lymph node staging in bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Urol Int 96(1):51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Jensen TK, Holt P, Gerke O, Riehmann M, Svolgaard B, Marcussen N, Bouchelouche K (2011) Preoperative lymph-node staging of invasive urothelial bladder cancer with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed axial tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with histopathology. Scand J Urol Nephrol 45(2):122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD, Klim AP, Grubb RL, Humphrey PA, Siegel C, Cao D, Gao F, Siegel BA (2009) Prospective study of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 27(26):4314–4320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Lista F, Andres G, Caceres F, Ramon de Fata F, Rodriguez-Barbero JM, Angulo JC (2013) Evaluation of risk of muscle invasion, perivesical and/or lymph node affectation by diffusion-weighted magnetic nuclear resonance in the patient who is a candidate for radical cystectomy. Actas Urol Esp 37(7):419–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Picchio M, Treiber U, Beer AJ, Metz S, Bössner P, Randenborgh H, Paul R, Weirich G, Souvatzoglou M, Hartung R, Schwaiger M, Piert M (2006) Value of 11C-choline PET and contrast-enhanced CT for staging of bladder cancer: correlation with histopathologic findings. J Nucl Med 47(6):938–944Google Scholar
- 49.Wollin DA, Deng FM, Huang WC, Babb JS, Rosenkrantz AB (2014) Conventional and diffusion-weighted MRI features in diagnosis of metastatic lymphadenopathy in bladder cancer. Can J Urol 21(5):7454–7459Google Scholar