Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Treatment recommendations of penile cancers are determined primarily by the local extent of the primary tumor. Clinical palpation is used for local staging. We reviewed diagnostic performance of MRI in local staging of penile cancer in three clinical scenarios (questions [Qs] 1 through 3, Q1-Q3) and one imaging scenario (Q4). Q1 asked whether MRI reliably distinguishes ≤ T1 from ≥ T2 disease. Q2 asked whether clinical staging reliably identifies ≤ T1 versus ≥ T2 disease and how clinical staging compares to MRI. Q3 asked if MRI is accurate for diagnosis of T3 disease. Q4 asked if artificial erection (by intracavernosal injection of prostaglandin E) improved accuracy of MRI in T categorization. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched through September 13, 2021, for studies evaluating local staging of penile cancer using MRI with surgical pathology as the reference standard. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated using a bivariate random-effects model and hierarchic summary ROC mode Meta-regression was performed to test for covariate effects of MRI and artificial erection in Q3 and Q4, respectively. Eight studies and 481 patients were included. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for Q1 were 86% (95% CI, 73-94%) and 89% (95% CI, 77-95%), respectively. AUC for MRI (0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96) did not differ from clinical staging (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; = .83). For Q3, MRI had sensitivity and specificity of 80% (95% CI, 70-87%) and 96% (95% CI, 85-99%), respectively. For Q4, sensitivity and specificity for MRI with versus without artificial erection were 85% (95% CI, 71-92%) and 93% (95% CI, 77-98%) versus 86% (95% CI, 68-95%) and 84% (95% CI, 70-93%), respectively ( = .50). MRI staging of penile cancer may be considered for ≤ T1 versus ≥ T2 disease but did not appear more accurate than clinical staging. High specificity of MRI for diagnosis of ≥ T3 disease suggests that MRI may be useful when organ-sparing approaches are planned. MRI with and without artificial erection showed similar accuracy in local staging. MRI, with or without artificial erection, may be valuable in routine preoperative evaluation of local staging of penile cancer, particularly when organ-sparing options are considered.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.21.27063 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!