{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,5]],"date-time":"2026-05-05T04:47:16Z","timestamp":1777956436455,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Canadian Urological Association Journal","issue":"9","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["CUAJ"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Introduction: The accurate diagnosis of prostate cancer remains a clinical challenge, with both multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and 18F-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography\/computed tomography (PSMA PET\/CT) emerging as important imaging modalities. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-PSMA PET\/CT vs. MRI for detecting prostate cancer.\nMethods: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Multiple databases were searched through February 2025. Studies comparing 18F-PSMA PET\/CT with MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis using histopathology as the reference standard were included. Random-effects models were used to pool sensitivity data, with heterogeneity assessed using I\u00b2 statistics.\nResults: Six studies comprising 310 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity for MRI was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.99) with substantial heterogeneity (I\u00b2=93.8%). For 18F-PSMA PET\/CT, the overall sensitivity was 0.50 (95% CI 0.12-0.87) with high heterogeneity (I\u00b2=96.0%). Subgroup analysis showed 18F-PSMA PET had a pooled sensitivity of 0.50 (95% CI 0.12-0.87), while MRI demonstrated 0.81 (95% CI 0.42-0.96). No significant publication bias was detected.\nConclusions: Both imaging modalities showed variable diagnostic performance across studies. The combination of PSMA PET\/CT and MRI may provide complementary information for optimal prostate cancer detection, although substantial heterogeneity suggests the need for standardized protocols and larger prospective trials.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.5489\/cuaj.9534","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,5]],"date-time":"2026-05-05T02:24:25Z","timestamp":1777947865000},"source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["18F-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography\/ computed tomography vs. magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of prostate cancer: A meta-analysis"],"prefix":"10.5489","volume":"20","author":[{"given":"Hailong","family":"Feng","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Yanqing","family":"Su","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Fuzhi","family":"Lu","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"3456","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]]},"container-title":["Canadian Urological Association Journal"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/cuaj.ca\/index.php\/journal\/article\/download\/9534\/6825","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/cuaj.ca\/index.php\/journal\/article\/download\/9534\/6825","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,5]],"date-time":"2026-05-05T02:24:25Z","timestamp":1777947865000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/cuaj.ca\/index.php\/journal\/article\/view\/9534"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"9","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5489\/cuaj.9534","relation":{},"ISSN":["1920-1214","1911-6470"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1920-1214","type":"electronic"},{"value":"1911-6470","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]]}}}