OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse literature data on the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with Ewing sarcoma family tumours (ESFT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for articles that evaluated FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with ESFT from inception to 31 May 2011. Studies that fulfilled the three following criteria were included in the systematic review: FDG-PET or PET/CT performed in patients with ESFT; articles about the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET and PET/CT; sample size of at least 10 patients with ESFT were included. Studies in which there were sufficient data to reassess sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET or PET/CT in ESFT were included in the meta-analysis, excluding duplicate publications. Finally, pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of FDG-PET or PET/CT in ESFT were calculated. RESULTS: We found 13 studies comprising a total of 342 patients with ESFT. The main findings of the studies included are presented. The meta-analysis of five selected studies provided these results about FDG-PET and PET/CT in ESFT: pooled sensitivity: 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91-99%); pooled specificity: 92% (95% CI 87-96%); area under the ROC curve: 0.97. CONCLUSION: With regard to the staging and restaging of patients with ESFT, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of FDG-PET and PET/CT are high; the combination of FDG-PET or PET/CT with conventional imaging is a valuable tool for the staging and restaging of ESFT and has a relevant impact on the treatment strategy plan.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyse literature data on the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in patients with Ewing sarcoma family tumours (ESFT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for articles that evaluated FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with ESFT from inception to 31 May 2011. Studies that fulfilled the three following criteria were included in the systematic review: FDG-PET or PET/CT performed in patients with ESFT; articles about the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET and PET/CT; sample size of at least 10 patients with ESFT were included. Studies in which there were sufficient data to reassess sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET or PET/CT in ESFT were included in the meta-analysis, excluding duplicate publications. Finally, pooled sensitivity, pooled specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of FDG-PET or PET/CT in ESFT were calculated. RESULTS: We found 13 studies comprising a total of 342 patients with ESFT. The main findings of the studies included are presented. The meta-analysis of five selected studies provided these results about FDG-PET and PET/CT in ESFT: pooled sensitivity: 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91-99%); pooled specificity: 92% (95% CI 87-96%); area under the ROC curve: 0.97. CONCLUSION: With regard to the staging and restaging of patients with ESFT, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of FDG-PET and PET/CT are high; the combination of FDG-PET or PET/CT with conventional imaging is a valuable tool for the staging and restaging of ESFT and has a relevant impact on the treatment strategy plan.
Authors: H E Daldrup-Link; C Franzius; T M Link; D Laukamp; J Sciuk; H Jürgens; O Schober; E J Rummeny Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: C Franzius; H E Daldrup-Link; A Wagner-Bohn; J Sciuk; W L Heindel; H Jürgens; O Schober Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Hans U Gerth; Kai U Juergens; Uta Dirksen; Joachim Gerss; Otmar Schober; Christiane Franzius Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Raciborska; K Bilska; K Drabko; E Michalak; R Chaber; M Pogorzała; K Połczyńska; G Sobol; M Wieczorek; K Muszyńska-Rosłan; M Rychlowska-Pruszyńska; C Rodriguez-Galindo; M Dziuk Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Nisreen S Ezuddin; Juan Pretell-Mazzini; Raphael L Yechieli; Darcy A Kerr; Breelyn A Wilky; Ty K Subhawong Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Elba C Etchebehere; Brian P Hobbs; Denái R Milton; Osama Malawi; Shreyaskumar Patel; Robert S Benjamin; Homer A Macapinlac Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: B S Somarouthu; A B Shinagare; M H Rosenthal; H Tirumani; J L Hornick; N H Ramaiya; S H Tirumani Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 3.039