T Nihashi1, I J Dahabreh, T Terasawa. 1. Department of Radiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies have assessed PET by using various tracers to diagnose disease recurrence in patients with previously treated glioma; however, the accuracy of these methods, particularly compared with alternative imaging modalities, remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of PET and compare it with alternative imaging modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus (until June 2011), bibliographies, and review articles. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, validity items, and quantitative data on diagnostic accuracy. We performed meta-analysis when ≥5 studies were available. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were eligible. Studies were heterogeneous in treatment strategies and diagnostic criteria of PET; recurrence was typically suspected by CT or MR imaging. The diagnostic accuracies of (18)F-FDG (n = 16) and (11)C-MET PET (n = 7) were heterogeneous across studies. (18)F-FDG PET had a summary sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.85) and specificity of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91) for any glioma histology; (11)C-methionine PET had a summary sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.84) and specificity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.44-1.0) for high-grade glioma. These estimates were stable in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Data were limited on (18)F-FET (n = 4), (18)F-FLT (n = 2), and (18)F-boronophenylalanine (n = 1). Few studies performed direct comparisons between different PET tracers or between PET and other imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FDG and (11)C-MET PET appear to have moderately good accuracy as add-on tests for diagnosing recurrent glioma suspected by CT or MR imaging. Studies comparing alternative tracers or PET versus other imaging modalities are scarce. Prospective studies performing head-to-head comparisons between alternative imaging modalities are needed.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies have assessed PET by using various tracers to diagnose disease recurrence in patients with previously treated glioma; however, the accuracy of these methods, particularly compared with alternative imaging modalities, remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of PET and compare it with alternative imaging modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus (until June 2011), bibliographies, and review articles. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, validity items, and quantitative data on diagnostic accuracy. We performed meta-analysis when ≥5 studies were available. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were eligible. Studies were heterogeneous in treatment strategies and diagnostic criteria of PET; recurrence was typically suspected by CT or MR imaging. The diagnostic accuracies of (18)F-FDG (n = 16) and (11)C-MET PET (n = 7) were heterogeneous across studies. (18)F-FDG PET had a summary sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.85) and specificity of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.54-0.91) for any glioma histology; (11)C-methionine PET had a summary sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.84) and specificity of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.44-1.0) for high-grade glioma. These estimates were stable in subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Data were limited on (18)F-FET (n = 4), (18)F-FLT (n = 2), and (18)F-boronophenylalanine (n = 1). Few studies performed direct comparisons between different PET tracers or between PET and other imaging modalities. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FDG and (11)C-MET PET appear to have moderately good accuracy as add-on tests for diagnosing recurrent glioma suspected by CT or MR imaging. Studies comparing alternative tracers or PET versus other imaging modalities are scarce. Prospective studies performing head-to-head comparisons between alternative imaging modalities are needed.
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Roger M Harbord; Jonathan J Deeks; Matthias Egger; Penny Whiting; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: Biostatistics Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 5.899
Authors: Andrea Varrone; Susanne Asenbaum; Thierry Vander Borght; Jan Booij; Flavio Nobili; Kjell Någren; Jacques Darcourt; Ozlem L Kapucu; Klaus Tatsch; Peter Bartenstein; Koen Van Laere Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: George A Alexiou; Spyridon Tsiouris; Athanasios P Kyritsis; Spyridon Voulgaris; Maria I Argyropoulou; Andreas D Fotopoulos Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Manuel Gómez-Río; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Carlos Ramos-Font; Escarlata López-Ramírez; José Manuel Llamas-Elvira Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yelda Ozsunar; Mark E Mullins; Kenneth Kwong; Fred H Hochberg; Christine Ament; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Talia C Oughourlian; Jingwen Yao; Jacob Schlossman; Catalina Raymond; Matthew Ji; Hiroyuki Tatekawa; Noriko Salamon; Whitney B Pope; Johannes Czernin; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Albert Lai; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Nathalie L Albert; Michael Weller; Bogdana Suchorska; Norbert Galldiks; Riccardo Soffietti; Michelle M Kim; Christian la Fougère; Whitney Pope; Ian Law; Javier Arbizu; Marc C Chamberlain; Michael Vogelbaum; Ben M Ellingson; Joerg C Tonn Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 12.300