PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare current noninvasive imaging methods (ultrasonography [US], computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance [MR] imaging, and (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG] positron emission tomography [PET]) in the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search and review of article bibliographies and our institutional charts of patients with colorectal cancer identified data with histopathologic correlation or at least 6 months of patient follow-up. Two authors independently abstracted data sets and excluded data without contingency tables or data published more than once. Summary-weighted estimates of sensitivity were obtained and stratified according to specificity of less than 85% or 85% and higher. A covariate analysis was used to evaluate the influence of patient- or study-related factors on sensitivity. RESULTS: Among 111 data sets, nine US (509 patients), 25 CT (1,747 patients), 11 MR imaging (401 patients), and nine PET (423 patients) data sets met the inclusion criteria. In studies with a specificity higher than 85%, the mean weighted sensitivity was 55% (95% CI: 41, 68) for US, 72% (95% CI: 63, 80) for CT, 76% (95% CI: 57, 91) for MR imaging, and 90% (95% CI: 80, 97) for FDG PET. Results of pairwise comparison between imaging modalities demonstrated a greater sensitivity of FDG PET than US (P =.001), CT (P =.017), and MR imaging (P =.055). CONCLUSION: At equivalent specificity, FDG PET is the most sensitive noninvasive imaging modality for the diagnosis of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers. Copyright RSNA, 2002
PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare current noninvasive imaging methods (ultrasonography [US], computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance [MR] imaging, and (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG] positron emission tomography [PET]) in the detection of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search and review of article bibliographies and our institutional charts of patients with colorectal cancer identified data with histopathologic correlation or at least 6 months of patient follow-up. Two authors independently abstracted data sets and excluded data without contingency tables or data published more than once. Summary-weighted estimates of sensitivity were obtained and stratified according to specificity of less than 85% or 85% and higher. A covariate analysis was used to evaluate the influence of patient- or study-related factors on sensitivity. RESULTS: Among 111 data sets, nine US (509 patients), 25 CT (1,747 patients), 11 MR imaging (401 patients), and nine PET (423 patients) data sets met the inclusion criteria. In studies with a specificity higher than 85%, the mean weighted sensitivity was 55% (95% CI: 41, 68) for US, 72% (95% CI: 63, 80) for CT, 76% (95% CI: 57, 91) for MR imaging, and 90% (95% CI: 80, 97) for FDG PET. Results of pairwise comparison between imaging modalities demonstrated a greater sensitivity of FDG PET than US (P =.001), CT (P =.017), and MR imaging (P =.055). CONCLUSION: At equivalent specificity, FDG PET is the most sensitive noninvasive imaging modality for the diagnosis of hepatic metastases from colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancers. Copyright RSNA, 2002
Authors: Eduardo de Santibañes; Diego Fernandez; Carlos Vaccaro; Guillermo Ojea Quintana; Fernando Bonadeo; Juan Pekolj; Carlos Bonofiglio; Ernesto Molmenti Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Alec H Engledow; James R A Skipworth; Farrokh Pakzad; Charles Imber; Peter J Ell; Ashley M Groves Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-11-14 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Lale Umutlu; Stephan Orzada; Sonja Kinner; Stefan Maderwald; Irina Brote; Andreas K Bitz; Oliver Kraff; Susanne C Ladd; Gerald Antoch; Mark E Ladd; Harald H Quick; Thomas C Lauenstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-09-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Siew C Chua; Ashley M Groves; Irfan Kayani; Leon Menezes; Svetislav Gacinovic; Yong Du; Jamshed B Bomanji; Peter J Ell Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 9.236