Scholarlink

Background <p>Micro-ultrasound (micro-US; 29-MHz) offers real-time, high-resolution prostate imaging, but its stand-alone diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. We synthesized prospective evidence to evaluate micro-US for classifying clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using histopathology as the reference standard.</p> Methods <p>We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception–20 May 2025) for prospective studies assessing micro-US as an index test on a diagnostic pathway. Data were pooled using random-effects models on logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity, with an HSROC representation and model diagnostics. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored heterogeneity, including threshold (PRI-MUS) and spectrum effects. Clinical utility was appraised using Fagan nomograms and a likelihood-ratio scatter. Small-study effects were evaluated with Deeks’ test.</p> Results <p>Five prospective studies met criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.65–0.94) and pooled specificity was 0.41 (95% CI 0.25–0.59), indicating moderate discrimination on HSROC. Secondary metrics were concordant (PLR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17–1.80; NLR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23–0.61; DOR 3.95, 95% CI 2.48–6.30). On a 25% pre-test probability, the Fagan nomogram showed modest shifts (~ 33% after a positive test; ~11% after a negative), supporting a triage/rule-out role. Heterogeneity was substantial and strongly influenced by threshold and clinical spectrum differences; subgroup and meta-regression suggested that spectrum-related factors were associated with lower specificity, whereas no covariate robustly altered sensitivity (exploratory given small k). Model checks were acceptable, and Deeks’ test showed no evidence of small-study effects (<i>p</i> ≈ 0.70).</p> Conclusion <p>As a stand-alone index test for csPCa classification, micro-US demonstrates high sensitivity but low specificity, yielding modest impact on post-test probability. These findings support micro-US as a complementary/triage (rule-out) adjunct, particularly when mpMRI is unavailable, contraindicated, or delayed, while highlighting the need for standardized PRI-MUS thresholds, reader training, and larger multicenter studies to refine specificity and clarify integration with MRI-based pathways.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Standalone 29-MHz micro-ultrasound for classifying clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of prospective studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月31日

查看全文
  • Ahmed M. Abdel Gawad,
  • Ahmed Y. Aboelsaad,
  • Ahmed Fawzi Elsayed,
  • Elsayed Mohamed Abd El-Hamid Hassan,
  • Ahmed Yahia Ashour,
  • Alshimaa Yahia Ashour,
  • Eman M. El-Dydamony,
  • Maha M. Elzamek,
  • Amany Ahmed Soliman,
  • Hany Elsegeay,
  • Ahmed Farag wahsh,
  • Mohamed Fathy Elebiary,
  • Mohamed Abd El Rahman Alkenawy,
  • Mohamed Hamouda Elkasaby,
  • Atef A. Hassan

摘要

Background

Micro-ultrasound (micro-US; 29-MHz) offers real-time, high-resolution prostate imaging, but its stand-alone diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. We synthesized prospective evidence to evaluate micro-US for classifying clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using histopathology as the reference standard.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (inception–20 May 2025) for prospective studies assessing micro-US as an index test on a diagnostic pathway. Data were pooled using random-effects models on logit-transformed sensitivity and specificity, with an HSROC representation and model diagnostics. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored heterogeneity, including threshold (PRI-MUS) and spectrum effects. Clinical utility was appraised using Fagan nomograms and a likelihood-ratio scatter. Small-study effects were evaluated with Deeks’ test.

Results

Five prospective studies met criteria. Pooled sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.65–0.94) and pooled specificity was 0.41 (95% CI 0.25–0.59), indicating moderate discrimination on HSROC. Secondary metrics were concordant (PLR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17–1.80; NLR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23–0.61; DOR 3.95, 95% CI 2.48–6.30). On a 25% pre-test probability, the Fagan nomogram showed modest shifts (~ 33% after a positive test; ~11% after a negative), supporting a triage/rule-out role. Heterogeneity was substantial and strongly influenced by threshold and clinical spectrum differences; subgroup and meta-regression suggested that spectrum-related factors were associated with lower specificity, whereas no covariate robustly altered sensitivity (exploratory given small k). Model checks were acceptable, and Deeks’ test showed no evidence of small-study effects (p ≈ 0.70).

Conclusion

As a stand-alone index test for csPCa classification, micro-US demonstrates high sensitivity but low specificity, yielding modest impact on post-test probability. These findings support micro-US as a complementary/triage (rule-out) adjunct, particularly when mpMRI is unavailable, contraindicated, or delayed, while highlighting the need for standardized PRI-MUS thresholds, reader training, and larger multicenter studies to refine specificity and clarify integration with MRI-based pathways.