A P Rijkers1, R Valkema2, H J Duivenvoorden1, C H J van Eijck3. 1. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.vaneijck@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer is among the five most lethal malignancies in the world. Unfortunately, many malignant tumors go undetected by the current primary diagnostic tools. (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT might be useful to confirm suspected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed using all major search engines. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed as well as quality of the PET-protocol. The following pooled estimates served as primary outcome measures: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 90%, NPV 76% and accuracy 86%. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET/CT were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 89%, NPV 78% and accuracy 86%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for (18)FDG-PET to differentiate between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis were 90% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT offer no benefit over the current primary diagnostic tools in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, the (18)FDG-PET/CT systems are still improving. We should investigate the sensitivity and specificity of these new systems while reevaluating the tradeoff between false positive and false negative results. Yet, (18)FDG-PET/CT may have a role in the staging of pancreatic cancer, in survival prediction, and may add to other diagnostic information, like histology.
INTRODUCTION:Pancreatic cancer is among the five most lethal malignancies in the world. Unfortunately, many malignant tumors go undetected by the current primary diagnostic tools. (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT might be useful to confirm suspected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed using all major search engines. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed as well as quality of the PET-protocol. The following pooled estimates served as primary outcome measures: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 90%, NPV 76% and accuracy 86%. Pooled estimates for (18)FDG-PET/CT were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 89%, NPV 78% and accuracy 86%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for (18)FDG-PET to differentiate between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis were 90% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both (18)FDG-PET and (18)FDG-PET/CT offer no benefit over the current primary diagnostic tools in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, the (18)FDG-PET/CT systems are still improving. We should investigate the sensitivity and specificity of these new systems while reevaluating the tradeoff between false positive and false negative results. Yet, (18)FDG-PET/CT may have a role in the staging of pancreatic cancer, in survival prediction, and may add to other diagnostic information, like histology.
Authors: Claudio Scafoglio; Bruce A Hirayama; Vladimir Kepe; Jie Liu; Chiara Ghezzi; Nagichettiar Satyamurthy; Neda A Moatamed; Jiaoti Huang; Hermann Koepsell; Jorge R Barrio; Ernest M Wright Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Catherine A Foss; Liansheng Liu; Ronnie C Mease; Haofan Wang; Pankaj Pasricha; Martin G Pomper Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Kasper A Overbeek; Djuna L Cahen; Marcia Irene Canto; Marco J Bruno Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 3.043
Authors: Naveen M Kulkarni; Erik V Soloff; Parag P Tolat; Guillermo P Sangster; Jason B Fleming; Olga R Brook; Zhen Jane Wang; Elizabeth M Hecht; Marc Zins; Priya R Bhosale; Hina Arif-Tiwari; Lorenzo Mannelli; Avinash R Kambadakone; Eric P Tamm Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-03
Authors: Yong Yue; Arsen Osipov; Benedick Fraass; Howard Sandler; Xiao Zhang; Nicholas Nissen; Andrew Hendifar; Richard Tuli Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2017-02