RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an examination mode for detecting blood vessels in tissues, and it has been gradually used in the diagnosis of kidney cancer in recent years. This study explores the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the clinical diagnosis of renal cancer, and provides an accurate and effective method for clinical diagnosis of renal cancer. METHODS: CEUS and RCC were selected as the keywords. Searching the PubMed and Embase from 2007 to 2020, the original data were abstracted and performed heterogeneity test with the Meta-Disc software. The weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were calculated, as well as the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Further estimated the diagnostic value of CEUS in the research of renal cancer by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). The quality of evidence in researches was evaluated by QUADAS items. Meta-disc, Review Manager 5.3, and STATA 13 were used. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were adopted for Meta-analysis. The weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.97, 0.86, 6.8, 0.04 and 171, respectively; and AUC was 0.97. The results showed that there was high heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: CEUS technology has a good diagnostic value for RCC.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To systematically review the clinical value of 18F-DCFPyL prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PSMA PET/CT) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: Literature concerning 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT in the diagnosis of prostate cancer published from 2015 to 2020 was electronically searched in the databases including PubMed and Embase. Statistical analysis was carried out with STATA 15 software, and the quality of included studies was tested with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) items. The heterogeneity of the included data was tested. RESULTS: In total, nine pieces of literature involving 426 patients met the inclusion criteria. The heterogeneity of the study group was not obvious. The SEN, SPE, LR+, LR-, DOR as well as AUC of 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT diagnosis of prostate cancer were 0.91, 0.90, 8.9, 0.10, 93, and 0.93. The pooled DR of 18F-DCFPyL labeled PSMA PET/CT in PCa was 92%. The pooled DR was 89% for PSA≥0.5 ng/ml and 49% for PSA < 0.5ng/ml. CONCLUSION: 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT had good sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The DR of 18F-DCFPyL PSMA PET/CT was correlated with PSA value. Further large-sample, high-quality studies were needed.
