Shandra Bipat

Inflammatory bowel disease diagnosed with US, MR, scintigraphy, and CT: meta-analysis of prospective studies.

PURPOSE To compare, by performing a meta-analysis, the accuracies of ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies on the accuracy of US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, CT, and PET, as compared with a predefined reference standard, in the diagnosis of IBD. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated on per-patient and per-bowel-segment bases by using a bivariate random-effects model. RESULTS Thirty-three studies, from a search that yielded 1406 articles, were included in the final analysis. Mean sensitivity estimates for the diagnosis of IBD on a per-patient basis were high and not significantly different among the imaging modalities (89.7%, 93.0%, 87.8%, and 84.3% for US, MR imaging, scintigraphy, and CT, respectively). Mean per-patient specificity estimates were 95.6% for US, 92.8% for MR imaging, 84.5% for scintigraphy, and 95.1% for CT; the only significant difference in values was that between scintigraphy and US (P = .009). Mean per-bowel-segment sensitivity estimates were lower: 73.5% for US, 70.4% for MR imaging, 77.3% for scintigraphy, and 67.4% for CT. Mean per-bowel-segment specificity estimates were 92.9% for US, 94.0% for MR imaging, 90.3% for scintigraphy, and 90.2% for CT. CT proved to be significantly less sensitive and specific compared with scintigraphy (P = .006) and MR imaging (P = .037) CONCLUSION No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy among the imaging techniques were observed. Because patients with IBD often need frequent reevaluation of disease status, use of a diagnostic modality that does not involve the use of ionizing radiation is preferable.

Diagnostic Imaging of Colorectal Liver Metastases with CT, MR Imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies Including Patients Who Have Not Previously Undergone Treatment

PURPOSE To obtain diagnostic performance values of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET), and FDG PET/CT in the detection of colorectal liver metastases in patients who have not previously undergone therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A comprehensive search was performed for articles published from January 1990 to January 2010 that fulfilled the following criteria: a prospective study design was used; the study population included at least 10 patients; patients had histopathologically proved colorectal cancer; CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, or FDG PET/CT was performed for the detection of liver metastases; intraoperative findings or those from histopathologic examination or follow-up were used as the reference standard; and data for calculating sensitivity and specificity were included. Study design characteristics, patient characteristics, imaging features, reference tests, and 2 × 2 tables were recorded. RESULTS Thirty-nine articles (3391 patients) were included. Variation existed in study design characteristics, patient descriptions, imaging features, and reference tests. The sensitivity estimates of CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET on a per-lesion basis were 74.4%, 80.3%, and 81.4%, respectively. On a per-patient basis, the sensitivities of CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET were 83.6%, 88.2%, and 94.1%, respectively. The per-patient sensitivity of CT was lower than that of FDG PET (P = .025). Specificity estimates were comparable. For lesions smaller than 10 mm, the sensitivity estimates for MR imaging were higher than those for CT. No differences were seen for lesions measuring at least 10 mm. The sensitivity of MR imaging increased significantly after January 2004. The use of liver-specific contrast material and multisection CT scanners did not provide improved results. Data about FDG PET/CT were too limited for comparisons with other modalities. CONCLUSION MR imaging is the preferred first-line modality for evaluating colorectal liver metastases in patients who have not previously undergone therapy. FDG PET can be used as the second-line modality. The role of FDG PET/CT is not yet clear owing to the small number of studies. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100729/-/DC1.

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging of uterine cervical carcinoma: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE The goal of this article is to systematically review the available evidence on the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging of cervical carcinoma. METHODS A comprehensive computer literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 1985 to May 2002. Two reviewers independently scored methodological quality of included studies and extracted relevant data for data analysis. A bivariate random effect approach was used to summarize estimates of sensitivity and specificity values. Covariates were added to this model to study the influence of sample size, publication year, methodological criteria, and MRI techniques on summary estimates. RESULTS Fifty-seven articles were included. In 49 articles one imaging modality was evaluated (MRI, 38; CT, 11), and in 8 articles, both. Inclusion criteria were: minimum of 10 patients included, histopathology as reference standard, sufficient data presented to construct 2(x) 2 tables. The exclusion criterion was: data reported elsewhere in more detail. Sensitivity estimates for parametrial invasion were 74% (95% C: 68-79%) for MRI and 55% (95% CI: 44-66%) for CT, and for lymph node involvement, 60% (95% CI 52%-68%) and 43% (95% CI: 37-57%), respectively. MRI and CT had comparable specificities for parametrial invasion and lymph node involvement. For bladder invasion and rectum invasion the sensitivities for MRI were respectively 75% (95% CI: 66-83%) and 71% (95% CI: 53-83%), higher compared with CT. The specificity in evaluating bladder invasion for MRI was significantly higher compared with CT: 91% (95% CI: 83-95%) for MRI and 73% (95% CI: 52-87%) for CT. The specificities for rectum invasion were comparable. Differences in patient sample size, publication year, methodological criteria, and MRI techniques had no effect on the summary estimates. CONCLUSIONS For overall staging of cervical carcinoma, MRI is more accurate than CT.

The diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis compared with liver biopsy: a meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of US, CT, MRI and 1H-MRS for the evaluation of hepatic steatosis.MethodsFrom a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane (up to November 2009), articles were selected that investigated the diagnostic performance imaging techniques for evaluating hepatic steatosis with histopathology as the reference standard. Cut-off values for the presence of steatosis on liver biopsy were subdivided into four groups: (1) >0, >2 and >5% steatosis; (2) >10, >15 and >20%; (3) >25, >30 and >33%; (4) >50, >60 and >66%. Per group, summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The natural-logarithm of the diagnostic odds ratio (lnDOR) was used as a single indicator of test performance.Results46 articles were included. Mean sensitivity estimates for subgroups were 73.3–90.5% (US), 46.1–72.0% (CT), 82.0–97.4% (MRI) and 72.7–88.5% (1H-MRS). Mean specificity ranges were 69.6–85.2% (US), 88.1–94.6% (CT), 76.1–95.3% (MRI) and 92.0–95.7% (1H-MRS). Overall performance (lnDOR) of MRI and 1H-MRS was better than that for US and CT for all subgroups, with significant differences in groups 1 and 2.ConclusionMRI and 1H-MRS can be considered techniques of choice for accurate evaluation of hepatic steatosis.

Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease.

PURPOSE This study was a head-to-head comparison of graded compression ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in helping diagnose acute appendicitis with an emphasis on diagnostic value at different disease prevalences, commonly occurring in various hospital settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1966 to February 2006. Prospective trials were selected if they (a) compared graded compression US and CT in the same patient population; (b) included more than 10 patients, otherwise, the study was considered a case report; (c) evaluated mainly adults or adolescents; (d) used surgery and/or clinical follow-up as reference standard; and (e) reported data to calculate 2 x 2 contingency tables for graded compression US and CT. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) for US and CT were calculated. Posttest probabilities after CT and US were calculated for various clinically relevant prevalences. RESULTS Six studies were included, evaluating 671 patients (mean age range, 26-38 years); prevalence of acute appendicitis was 50% (range, 13%-77%). Positive LR was 9.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.9, 12.6) for CT and 4.50 (95% CI: 3.0, 6.7; P = .011) for US, yielding posttest probabilities for positive tests of 90% and 82%, respectively. Negative LR was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.17) for CT and 0.27 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.43) for US (P = .013), resulting in posttest probabilities of 9% and 21%, respectively. Posttest probabilities for positive tests were markedly decreased at lower prevalences. CONCLUSION In head-to-head comparison studies of diagnostic imaging, CT had a better test performance than did graded compression US in diagnosing appendicitis. Ignoring the relationship between prevalence (pretest probability) and diagnostic value may lead to an inaccurate estimation of diagnostic performance.

Diagnostic Performance of Computed Tomography Angiography in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is an increasingly attractive imaging modality for assessing lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). OBJECTIVE To determine the accuracy of CTA compared with intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in differentiating extent of disease in patients with PAD. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION Search of MEDLINE (January 1966-August 2008), EMBASE (January 1980-August 2008), and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness for studies comparing CTA with intra-arterial DSA for PAD. Eligible studies compared multidetector CTA with intra-arterial DSA, included at least 10 patients with intermittent claudication or critical limb ischemia, aimed to detect more than 50% stenosis or arterial occlusion, and presented either 2 x 2 or 3 x 3 contingency tables (< or = 50% stenosis vs > 50% stenosis or occlusion), or provided data allowing their construction. DATA EXTRACTION Two reviewers screened potential studies for inclusion and independently extracted study data. Methodological quality was assessed by using the QUADAS instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS Of 909 studies identified, 20 (2.2%) met the inclusion criteria. These 20 studies had a median sample size of 33 (range, 16-279) and included 957 patients, predominantly with intermittent claudication (68%). Methodological quality was moderate. Overall, the sensitivity of CTA for detecting more than 50% stenosis or occlusion was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-97%) and specificity was 96% (95% CI, 93%-97%). Computed tomography angiography correctly identified occlusions in 94% of segments, the presence of more than 50% stenosis in 87% of segments, and absence of significant stenosis in 96% of segments. Overstaging occurred in 8% of segments and understaging in 15%. CONCLUSION Computed tomography angiography is an accurate modality to assess presence and extent of PAD in patients with intermittent claudication; however, methodological weaknesses of examined studies prevent definitive conclusions from these data.

Ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and determining resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis.

Objective: To compare ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and determination of resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: Articles reporting US, CT, or MRI data of patients with known or suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma and at least 20 patients verified with histopathology, surgical findings, or follow-up were included. A bivariate random effects approach was used to calculate sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis and resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Results: Sixty-eight articles fulfilled all inclusion criteria. For diagnosis, sensitivities of helical CT, conventional CT, MRI, and US were 91%, 86%, 84%, and 76% and specificities were 85%, 79%, 82%, and 75% respectively. Sensitivities for MRI and US were significantly lower compared with helical CT (P = 0.04 and P = 0.0001). For determining resectability, sensitivities of helical CT, conventional CT, MRI, and US were 81%, 82%, 82, and 83% and specificities were 82%, 76%, 78%, and 63% respectively. Specificity of US was significantly lower compared with helical CT (P = 0.011). Conclusions: Helical CT is preferable as an imaging modality for the diagnosis and determination of resectability of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Coiling of Intracranial Aneurysms A Systematic Review on Initial Occlusion and Reopening and Retreatment Rates

Background and Purpose— The proportion of incompletely occluded aneurysms after coiling varies widely between studies. To assess overall outcome of coiling, we systematically reviewed the literature to determine initial occlusion, reopening, and retreatment rates of coiled aneurysms according to predefined criteria and subgroups. Methods— We searched PubMed and EMBASE (January 1999 to September 2008) for studies of >50 coiled aneurysms. Two reviewers independently extracted data. We grouped studies reporting on only ruptured aneurysms, posterior circulation aneurysms, and studies with large proportions of aneurysms >10 mm to assess possible determinants for incomplete occlusion, reopening, and retreatment. Results— Forty-six studies totalling 8161 coiled aneurysms met inclusion criteria. Immediately after coiling, 91.2% (95% CI, 90.6% to 91.9%) of the aneurysms were adequately occluded. Aneurysm reopening occurred in 20.8% (95% CI, 19.8% to 21.9%) and retreatment was performed in 10.3% (95% CI, 9.5% to 11.0%). Reopening rate was lower in studies reporting on ruptured aneurysms only compared with all studies (11.4% versus 20.8%; relative risk, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.64) and higher in studies focusing on posterior circulation aneurysms compared with studies with >85% anterior circulation aneurysms (22.5% versus 15.5%; relative risk, 1.5; 95% CI,1.2 to 1.7). Regression analysis showed higher retreatment rates with increasing proportion of aneurysms >10 mm (β=0.252; 95% CI, 0.073 to 0.432). We could not find a relation between reopening and type of coils used. Conclusion— At follow-up, one fifth of all coiled intracranial aneurysms shows reopening of which half is retreated. Possible risk factors for aneurysm reopening are location in the posterior circulation and size >10 mm. To confirm our findings, a meta-analysis on individual well-reported patient data is desirable. # Supplemental Appendix {#article-title-2}Background and Purpose— The proportion of incompletely occluded aneurysms after coiling varies widely between studies. To assess overall outcome of coiling, we systematically reviewed the literature to determine initial occlusion, reopening, and retreatment rates of coiled aneurysms according to predefined criteria and subgroups. Methods— We searched PubMed and EMBASE (January 1999 to September 2008) for studies of >50 coiled aneurysms. Two reviewers independently extracted data. We grouped studies reporting on only ruptured aneurysms, posterior circulation aneurysms, and studies with large proportions of aneurysms >10 mm to assess possible determinants for incomplete occlusion, reopening, and retreatment. Results— Forty-six studies totalling 8161 coiled aneurysms met inclusion criteria. Immediately after coiling, 91.2% (95% CI, 90.6% to 91.9%) of the aneurysms were adequately occluded. Aneurysm reopening occurred in 20.8% (95% CI, 19.8% to 21.9%) and retreatment was performed in 10.3% (95% CI, 9.5% to 11.0%). Reopening rate was lower in studies reporting on ruptured aneurysms only compared with all studies (11.4% versus 20.8%; relative risk, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.64) and higher in studies focusing on posterior circulation aneurysms compared with studies with >85% anterior circulation aneurysms (22.5% versus 15.5%; relative risk, 1.5; 95% CI,1.2 to 1.7). Regression analysis showed higher retreatment rates with increasing proportion of aneurysms >10 mm (&bgr;=0.252; 95% CI, 0.073 to 0.432). We could not find a relation between reopening and type of coils used. Conclusion— At follow-up, one fifth of all coiled intracranial aneurysms shows reopening of which half is retreated. Possible risk factors for aneurysm reopening are location in the posterior circulation and size >10 mm. To confirm our findings, a meta-analysis on individual well-reported patient data is desirable.

Patients Who Undergo Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Restaged by Using Diagnostic MR Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE To obtain performance values of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for restaging locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment regarding tumor staging, nodal staging, and tumor-free circumferential resection margins (CRMs). MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies regarding restaging compared with a reference standard by using the terms rectal neoplasms, MR imaging, and chemotherapy. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used, and data on imaging criteria, histopathologic criteria, and restaging were extracted. Responders were defined as positives and nonresponders, as negatives. Mean sensitivity, mean specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined by using a bivariate random-effects model. A positive LR greater than 5 implied moderate results for responders. RESULTS Thirty-three studies evaluated 1556 patients. For tumor stage, mean sensitivity was 50.4%, mean specificity was 91.2%, positive LR was 5.76, and negative LR was 0.54. Diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging showed comparable positive LR with significantly improved sensitivity (P = .01) and negative LR (P = .04). Experienced observers showed higher sensitivity (P = .01) and lower negative LR (P = .03) compared with less experienced observers. For CRM, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.3%, 85.9%, 5.40, and 0.28, respectively. For nodal stage per patient, mean sensitivity, mean specificity, positive LR, and negative LR were 76.5%, 59.8%, 1.90, and 0.39, respectively; and for nodal stage on a lesion basis, these values were 90.7%, 73.0%, 3.37, and 0.13, respectively. CONCLUSION MR imaging showed heterogeneous results of diagnostic performances for restaging rectal cancer after neoadjuvant treatment, but significantly better results were demonstrated when DW imaging was used or with experienced observers. MR imaging can also be used for evaluation of CRM staging, but nodal staging remains challenging.

Mini-implants in orthodontics: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION In this article, we systematically reviewed the literature to quantify success and complications encountered with the use of mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage, and to analyze factors associated with success or failure. METHODS Computerized and manual searches were conducted up to March 31, 2008, for clinical studies that addressed these objectives. The selection criteria required that these studies (1) reported the success rates of mini-implants on samples sizes of 10 implants or more, (2) gave a definition of success, (3) used implants with a diameter smaller than 2.5 mm, and (4) applied forces for a minimum duration of 3 months. Factors associated with implant success were accepted only if potentially influencing variables were controlled. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used as the guideline for this article. RESULTS Nineteen reports met the inclusion criteria, but definitions of success, duration of force application, and quality of the methodology of these studies varied widely. Rates of primary outcomes ranged from 0% to 100%, but most articles reported success rates greater than 80% if mobile and displaced implants were included as successful. Adverse effects of miniscrews included biologic damage, inflammation, and pain and discomfort. Only a few articles reported negative outcomes. All proposed correlations between clinical success and specific variables such as implant, patient, location, surgery, orthodontic, and implant-maintenance factors were rejected because they did not meet the selection criteria for controlling those variables. CONCLUSIONS Mini-implants can be used as temporary anchorage devices, but research in this field is still in its infancy. Interpretation of findings was conditioned by lack of clarity and poor methodology of most studies. Questions concerning patient acceptability, rate and severity of adverse effects of miniscrews, and variables that influenced success remain unanswered. This article includes a guideline for future studies of these issues, based on specific definitions of primary and secondary outcomes correlated with specific operational variables.