Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38523146›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2024

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT versus PET/CT for advanced ovarian cancer staging: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mitchell P Wilson, Sara Sorour, Bo Bao, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Vincent Man, Matthew Krill, Gavin Low

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparison of [Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mitchell P WilsonDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, 2B2.41 WMC, 8440-112 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada. mitch.wilson@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-1630-5138
Sara SorourDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, 2B2.41 WMC, 8440-112 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada.
Bo BaoDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, 2B2.41 WMC, 8440-112 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada.
Mohammad Hassan MuradEvidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Room 2-54, 205 3rd Ave SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Vincent ManDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, 2B2.41 WMC, 8440-112 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada.
Matthew KrillDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, 2B2.41 WMC, 8440-112 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada.
Gavin LowDepartment of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, University of Alberta, 2B2.41 WMC, 8440-112 Street NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate staging of ovarian cancer is critical to guide optimal management pathways. North American guidelines recommend contrast-enhanced CT as the primary work-up for staging ovarian cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT alone to PET/CT for detecting abdominal metastases in patients with a new or suspected diagnosis of ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature from inception to October 2022 was performed. Studies with a minimum of 5 patients evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT and/or PET/CT for detecting stage 3 ovarian cancer as defined by a surgical/histopathological reference standard ± clinical follow-up were included. Study, clinical, imaging, and accuracy data for eligible studies were independently acquired by two reviewers. Primary meta-analysis was performed in studies reporting accuracy on a per-patient basis using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was evaluated using QUADAS-2.

resultsFrom 3701 citations, 15 studies (918 patients with mean age ranging from 51 to 65 years) were included in the systematic review. Twelve studies evaluated contrast-enhanced CT (6 using a per-patient assessment and 6 using a per-region assessment) and 11 studies evaluated PET/CT (7 using a per-patient assessment and 4 using a per-region assessment). All but one reporting study used consensus reading. Respective sensitivity and specificity values on a per-patient basis were 82% (67-91%, 95% CI) and 72% (59-82%) for contrast-enhanced CT and 87% (75-94%) and 90% (82-95%) for PET/CT. There was no significant difference in sensitivities between modalities (p = 0.29), but PET/CT was significantly more specific than CT (p < 0.01). Presumed variability could not be assessed in any single category due to limited studies using per-patient assessment. Studies were almost entirely low risk for bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2.

conclusionContrast-enhanced CT demonstrates non-inferior sensitivity compared to PET/CT, although PET/CT may still serve as an alternative and/or supplement to CT alone prior to and/or in lieu of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with ovarian cancer. Future revisions to existing guidelines should consider these results to further refine the individualized pretherapeutic diagnostic pathway.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaNeoplasm StagingOvarian NeoplasmsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyTomography, X-Ray ComputedFemaleHumansSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaAccuracyComputed tomographyMucinousOvarian cancerPositron emission tomographySensitivitySerousSpecificityStaging

Identifiers

PMID38523146
OpenAlexW4393153475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.