These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Is diffusion-weighted MRI superior to FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT in evaluating and predicting pathological response to preoperative neoadjuvant therapy in patients with rectal cancer?
    Author: Li YL, Wu LM, Chen XX, Delproposto Z, Hu JN, Xu JR.
    Journal: J Dig Dis; 2014 Oct; 15(10):525-37. PubMed ID: 25060294.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) in evaluating and predicting pathological response to preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive literature research was conducted to identify the relevant studies for this meta-analysis. Combined sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies including 1564 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity (81% [95% CI 74-86%] vs 85% [95% CI 75-91%]) and NPV (80% [95% CI 68-89%] vs 91% [95% CI 80-95%]) for FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT were significantly lower than those for DW-MRI (P < 0.05). No differences were observed in pooled specificity and PPV between DW-MRI and FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT. Further subgroup analyses showed that DW-MRI had higher sensitivity on adenocarcinomas alone than on those including mucinous-type adenocarcinomas (92% [95% CI 83-99%] vs 76% [95% CI 63-90%], P = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: DW-MRI is superior to FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT in predicting and evaluating pathological responses to preoperative NCRT in patients with rectal cancer. However, its relatively low specificity and PPV limit its application in clinic, making it currently inappropriate to monitor such patients, especially those with mucinous-type rectal adenocarcinomas.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]