Hui-Lin Yang1, Tao Liu, Xi-Ming Wang, Yong Xu, Sheng-Ming Deng. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, The first affiliated hospital of Soochow University, No188, Shizi Street, Suzhou 215006, People's Republic of China. hlyang@suda.edu.cn
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare (18)FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy (BS) for the diagnosis of bone metastases. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant original articles published from January 1995 to January 2010. Software was used to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC). RESULTS: 67 articles consisting of 145 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. On per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 89.7%, 72.9%, 90.6% and 86.0% respectively. PET=MRI>BS>CT. ("="indicated no significant difference, P > 0.05; ">" indicated significantly higher, P < 0.05). The pooled specificity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 96.8%, 94.8%, 95.4% and 81.4% respectively. PET = CT = MRI>BS. On per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 86.9%, 77.1%, 90.4% and 75.1% respectively. PET = MRI>BS>CT. The pooled specificity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 97.0%, 83.2%, 96.0% and 93.6% respectively. PET>MRI>BS>CT. CONCLUSION: PET and MRI were found to be comparable and both significantly more accurate than CT and BS for the diagnosis of bone metastases.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare (18)FDG PET, CT, MRI and bone scintigraphy (BS) for the diagnosis of bone metastases. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant original articles published from January 1995 to January 2010. Software was used to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC). RESULTS: 67 articles consisting of 145 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria. On per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 89.7%, 72.9%, 90.6% and 86.0% respectively. PET=MRI>BS>CT. ("="indicated no significant difference, P > 0.05; ">" indicated significantly higher, P < 0.05). The pooled specificity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 96.8%, 94.8%, 95.4% and 81.4% respectively. PET = CT = MRI>BS. On per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 86.9%, 77.1%, 90.4% and 75.1% respectively. PET = MRI>BS>CT. The pooled specificity estimates for PET, CT, MRI and BS were 97.0%, 83.2%, 96.0% and 93.6% respectively. PET>MRI>BS>CT. CONCLUSION: PET and MRI were found to be comparable and both significantly more accurate than CT and BS for the diagnosis of bone metastases.
Authors: R Lebtahi; G Cadiot; N Delahaye; R Genin; D Daou; M C Peker; D Chosidow; M Faraggi; M Mignon; D Le Guludec Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: R Venkitaraman; G J R Cook; D P Dearnaley; C C Parker; V Khoo; R Eeles; R A Huddart; A Horwich; S A Sohaib Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Daniel Putzer; Michael Gabriel; Benjamin Henninger; Dorota Kendler; Christian Uprimny; Georg Dobrozemsky; Clemens Decristoforo; Reto Josef Bale; Werner Jaschke; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Bieke Van Den Bossche; Eveline D'haeninck; Frederic De Winter; Simon Van Belle; Rudi A Dierckx; Christophe Van De Wiele Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Ha T T Phan; Pieter L Jager; John T M Plukker; Bruce H R Wolffenbuttel; Rudi A Dierckx; Thera P Links Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Michael A Jacobs; Katarzyna J Macura; Atif Zaheer; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Vered Stearns; Antonio C Wolff; Thorsten Feiweier; Ihab R Kamel; Richard L Wahl; Li Pan Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Stuart A Taylor; Susan Mallett; Anne Miles; Stephen Morris; Laura Quinn; Caroline S Clarke; Sandy Beare; John Bridgewater; Vicky Goh; Sam Janes; Dow-Mu Koh; Alison Morton; Neal Navani; Alfred Oliver; Anwar Padhani; Shonit Punwani; Andrea Rockall; Steve Halligan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: F E Lecouvet; A Larbi; V Pasoglou; P Omoumi; B Tombal; N Michoux; J Malghem; R Lhommel; B C Vande Berg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christian Uprimny; Anna Svirydenka; Josef Fritz; Alexander Stephan Kroiss; Bernhard Nilica; Clemens Decristoforo; Roland Haubner; Elisabeth von Guggenberg; Sabine Buxbaum; Wolfgang Horninger; Irene Johanna Virgolini Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 9.236