Håkan Geijer1, Lars H Breimer. 1. Centre for Assessment of Medical Technology in Örebro (CAMTÖ), Örebro University Hospital, 701 85, Örebro, Sweden, hakan.geijer@orebroll.se.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neuroendocrine tumours (NET) are uncommon and may be localized in many different places in the body. Traditional imaging has mainly been performed with CT and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS). Recently, it has become possible to use somatostatin receptor PET/CT (SMSR PET) instead, which might improve diagnostic quality. To evaluate the diagnostic quality of SMSR PET we performed a meta-analysis as an update of a previous study published in 2012. METHODS: A literature search was performed searching MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases with a combination of the expressions "PET", "positron emission tomography", "neuroendocrine" and "NET". The search was updated to 31 December 2012. Studies were selected which evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of SMSR PET for NET in the thorax or abdomen with a study size of at least eight patients. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated with QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final analysis, and 14 articles from a previous meta-analysis were added for a total of 22 articles. A total of 2,105 patients were included in the studies, an increase from 567 in the previous meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 93 % (95 % CI 91 - 94 %) and specificity 96 % (95 % CI 95 - 98 %). The area under the summary ROC curve was 0.98 (95 % CI 0.95 - 1.0). In the previous meta-analysis the pooled sensitivity was 93 % (95 % CI 91 - 95 %) and specificity 91 % (95 % CI 82 - 97 %). CONCLUSION: SMSR PET has good diagnostic performance for evaluation of NET in the thorax and abdomen, better than SRS which has been the previous standard method. This meta-analysis gives further support for switching to SMSR PET.
PURPOSE:Neuroendocrine tumours (NET) are uncommon and may be localized in many different places in the body. Traditional imaging has mainly been performed with CT and somatostatin receptor scintigraphy (SRS). Recently, it has become possible to use somatostatin receptor PET/CT (SMSR PET) instead, which might improve diagnostic quality. To evaluate the diagnostic quality of SMSR PET we performed a meta-analysis as an update of a previous study published in 2012. METHODS: A literature search was performed searching MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases with a combination of the expressions "PET", "positron emission tomography", "neuroendocrine" and "NET". The search was updated to 31 December 2012. Studies were selected which evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of SMSR PET for NET in the thorax or abdomen with a study size of at least eight patients. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated with QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final analysis, and 14 articles from a previous meta-analysis were added for a total of 22 articles. A total of 2,105 patients were included in the studies, an increase from 567 in the previous meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 93 % (95 % CI 91 - 94 %) and specificity 96 % (95 % CI 95 - 98 %). The area under the summary ROC curve was 0.98 (95 % CI 0.95 - 1.0). In the previous meta-analysis the pooled sensitivity was 93 % (95 % CI 91 - 95 %) and specificity 91 % (95 % CI 82 - 97 %). CONCLUSION:SMSR PET has good diagnostic performance for evaluation of NET in the thorax and abdomen, better than SRS which has been the previous standard method. This meta-analysis gives further support for switching to SMSR PET.
Authors: Irene Virgolini; Valentina Ambrosini; Jamshed B Bomanji; Richard P Baum; Stefano Fanti; Michael Gabriel; Nikolaos D Papathanasiou; Giovanna Pepe; Wim Oyen; Clemens De Cristoforo; Arturo Chiti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nils F Schreiter; Winfried Brenner; Munenobu Nogami; Ralph Buchert; Alexander Huppertz; Ulrich-Frank Pape; Vikas Prasad; Bernd Hamm; Martin H Maurer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michael Gabriel; Clemens Decristoforo; Dorota Kendler; Georg Dobrozemsky; Dirk Heute; Christian Uprimny; Peter Kovacs; Elisabeth Von Guggenberg; Reto Bale; Irene J Virgolini Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E P Krenning; D J Kwekkeboom; W H Bakker; W A Breeman; P P Kooij; H Y Oei; M van Hagen; P T Postema; M de Jong; J C Reubi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1993-08
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: A Chiti; S Fanti; G Savelli; A Romeo; B Bellanova; M Rodari; B J van Graafeiland; N Monetti; E Bombardieri Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Date: 1998-10
Authors: I Buchmann; M Henze; S Engelbrecht; M Eisenhut; A Runz; M Schäfer; T Schilling; S Haufe; T Herrmann; U Haberkorn Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S Van Binnebeek; B Vanbilloen; K Baete; C Terwinghe; M Koole; F M Mottaghy; P M Clement; L Mortelmans; K Bogaerts; K Haustermans; K Nackaerts; E Van Cutsem; C Verslype; A Verbruggen; C M Deroose Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-07-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lino M Sawicki; Cornelius Deuschl; Karsten Beiderwellen; Verena Ruhlmann; Thorsten D Poeppel; Philipp Heusch; Harald Lahner; Dagmar Führer; Andreas Bockisch; Ken Herrmann; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: E A Aalbersberg; B J de Wit-van der Veen; M W J Versleijen; L J Saveur; G D Valk; M E T Tesselaar; M P M Stokkel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 9.236