PURPOSE: To systematically review and meta-analyse published data on the diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in detecting bone marrow involvement in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched for relevant studies. The methodological quality of each study was assessed. Sensitivities and specificities of FDG PET/CT in individual studies were calculated and meta-analysed with a random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) was constructed with the Moses-Shapiro-Littenberg method. Weighted summary proportions of discrepancies between the FDG PET/CT and (blind) bone marrow biopsy (BMB) results among all patients were calculated. RESULTS: Seven studies, with a total of 654 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, were included. Overall, the quality of the included studies was moderate. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET/CT for detecting bone marrow involvement ranged from 70.8% to 95.8% and from 99.0% to 100%, with pooled estimates of 88.7% (95% confidence interval, CI, 82.5-93.3%) and 99.8% (95% CI 98.8-100%), respectively. The area under the sROC curve was 0.9983. The weighted summary proportion of FDG PET/CT-negative patients with positive BMB findings among all patients was 3.1% (95% CI 1.8-5.0%) and the weighted summary proportion of FDG PET/CT-positive patients with negative BMB findings among all patients was 12.5% (95% CI 8.4-17.3%). CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT is accurate and complementary to BMB for detecting bone marrow involvement in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. A negative FDG PET/CT scan cannot rule out the presence of bone marrow involvement, but positive FDG PET/CT findings obviate the need for BMB for the detection of bone marrow involvement in these patients.
PURPOSE: To systematically review and meta-analyse published data on the diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in detecting bone marrow involvement in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched for relevant studies. The methodological quality of each study was assessed. Sensitivities and specificities of FDG PET/CT in individual studies were calculated and meta-analysed with a random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC) was constructed with the Moses-Shapiro-Littenberg method. Weighted summary proportions of discrepancies between the FDG PET/CT and (blind) bone marrow biopsy (BMB) results among all patients were calculated. RESULTS: Seven studies, with a total of 654 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, were included. Overall, the quality of the included studies was moderate. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET/CT for detecting bone marrow involvement ranged from 70.8% to 95.8% and from 99.0% to 100%, with pooled estimates of 88.7% (95% confidence interval, CI, 82.5-93.3%) and 99.8% (95% CI 98.8-100%), respectively. The area under the sROC curve was 0.9983. The weighted summary proportion of FDG PET/CT-negative patients with positive BMB findings among all patients was 3.1% (95% CI 1.8-5.0%) and the weighted summary proportion of FDG PET/CT-positive patients with negative BMB findings among all patients was 12.5% (95% CI 8.4-17.3%). CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT is accurate and complementary to BMB for detecting bone marrow involvement in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. A negative FDG PET/CT scan cannot rule out the presence of bone marrow involvement, but positive FDG PET/CT findings obviate the need for BMB for the detection of bone marrow involvement in these patients.
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: H Tilly; U Vitolo; J Walewski; M Gomes da Silva; O Shpilberg; M André; M Pfreundschuh; M Dreyling Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Laurie H Sehn; David W Scott; Mukesh Chhanabhai; Brian Berry; Anna Ruskova; Leanne Berkahn; Joseph M Connors; Randy D Gascoyne Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pierre Y Salaun; Thomas Gastinne; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Loïc Campion; Pierre Cambefort; Anne Moreau; Steven Le Gouill; Christian Berthou; Philippe Moreau; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-06-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Hugo J A Adams; Thomas C Kwee; Rob Fijnheer; Stefan V Dubois; Peter E Blase; Rutger A J Nievelstein; John M H de Klerk Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Jun Tang; Darin Salloum; Brandon Carney; Christian Brand; Susanne Kossatz; Ahmad Sadique; Jason S Lewis; Wolfgang A Weber; Hans-Guido Wendel; Thomas Reiner Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Juan Pablo Alderuccio; Derek Isrow; Isildinha M Reis; Sunil Girish Iyer; Jessica J Meshman; Wei Zhao; Francisco Vega; Jennifer R Chapman; Arnold M Markoe; Izidore S Lossos Journal: Blood Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Bruce D Cheson; Richard I Fisher; Sally F Barrington; Franco Cavalli; Lawrence H Schwartz; Emanuele Zucca; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 44.544