Xiao-Ping Ding1, Li Feng, Li Ma. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Second Artillery General Hospital, 16th, Xinjiekouwaidajie Road, XiCheng District, Beijing, 100088, China, xiaoping_ding9902@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to assess and compare the overall value of stand-alone FDG PET and PET/CT in diagnosing recurrent cervical cancer with a meta-analysis. METHODS: All the English published studies which addressed the use of PET whether interpreted with or without the use of CT for the diagnosis of recurrent cervical cancer were collected. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated, summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic ability of stand-alone PET and PET/CT. RESULT: A total of 18 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 762 subjects. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET and PET/CT were 0.91 (95 % CI 0.87-0.94) and 0.94 (95 % CI 0.89-0.97), and 0.92 (95 % CI 0.91-0.94) and 0.84 (95 % CI 0.74-0.91), respectively. The areas under the SROC curve (AUCs) of PET and PET/CT were 0.9610 and 0.9491, respectively. There was no statistical significance between the AUC of PET and PET/CT (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both PET and PET/CT have good performance in the detection of recurrent cervical cancer. However, interpreted CT images may have limited additional value on PET in detecting recurrent cervical cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to assess and compare the overall value of stand-alone FDG PET and PET/CT in diagnosing recurrent cervical cancer with a meta-analysis. METHODS: All the English published studies which addressed the use of PET whether interpreted with or without the use of CT for the diagnosis of recurrent cervical cancer were collected. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated, summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic ability of stand-alone PET and PET/CT. RESULT: A total of 18 studies were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 762 subjects. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET and PET/CT were 0.91 (95 % CI 0.87-0.94) and 0.94 (95 % CI 0.89-0.97), and 0.92 (95 % CI 0.91-0.94) and 0.84 (95 % CI 0.74-0.91), respectively. The areas under the SROC curve (AUCs) of PET and PET/CT were 0.9610 and 0.9491, respectively. There was no statistical significance between the AUC of PET and PET/CT (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both PET and PET/CT have good performance in the detection of recurrent cervical cancer. However, interpreted CT images may have limited additional value on PET in detecting recurrent cervical cancer.
Authors: Matthias W Beckmann; Frederik A Stübs; Martin C Koch; Peter Mallmann; Christian Dannecker; Anna Dietl; Anna Sevnina; Franziska Mergel; Laura Lotz; Carolin C Hack; Anne Ehret; Daniel Gantert; Franca Martignoni; Jan-Philipp Cieslik; Jan Menke; Olaf Ortmann; Carmen Stromberger; Karin Oechsle; Beate Hornemann; Friederike Mumm; Christoph Grimm; Alina Sturdza; Edward Wight; Kristina Loessl; Michael Golatta; Volker Hagen; Timm Dauelsberg; Ingo Diel; Karsten Münstedt; Eberhard Merz; Dirk Vordermark; Katja Lindel; Christian Wittekind; Volkmar Küppers; Ralph Lellé; Klaus Neis; Henrik Griesser; Birgit Pöschel; Manfred Steiner; Ulrich Freitag; Tobias Gilster; Alexander Schmittel; Michael Friedrich; Heidemarie Haase; Marion Gebhardt; Ludwig Kiesel; Michael Reinhardt; Michael Kreißl; Marianne Kloke; Lars-Christian Horn; Regina Wiedemann; Simone Marnitz; Anne Letsch; Isabella Zraik; Bernhard Mangold; Jochen Möckel; Céline Alt; Pauline Wimberger; Peter Hillemanns; Kerstin Paradies; Alexander Mustea; Dominik Denschlag; Ulla Henscher; Reina Tholen; Simone Wesselmann; Tanja Fehm Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.915