Jinkui Li1, Ruifeng Yan1, Junqiang Lei2, Changqin Jiang1. 1. The First Clinical Medical School of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. 2. The First Hospital of Lanzhou Univesity, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. leijq1990@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The study aims to perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic value of FDG PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) to identify the potentially most useful diagnostic modality. METHODS: A computer-aided search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the China Biological Medicine Database, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and Wanfang databases for articles concerning diagnosis of peritoneal metastases with PET or PET/CT. QUADAS was used to evaluate the included articles' quality. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity of PET/CT (84%) was significantly higher than that of PET (60%), and the pooled specificity of PET (98%) was markedly higher than that for PET/CT (94%). On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 87 and 95%, respectively. Only 1 PET study on a per-lesion basis, its sensitivity is 65.8 and specificity is 94.1%. CONCLUSIONS: PET and PET/CT are powerful imaging techniques for detection and characterization of PC. PET/CT can be used as a screening tool and it may be acceptable to use PET as a diagnosis tool.
PURPOSE: The study aims to perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic value of FDG PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) to identify the potentially most useful diagnostic modality. METHODS: A computer-aided search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the China Biological Medicine Database, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and Wanfang databases for articles concerning diagnosis of peritoneal metastases with PET or PET/CT. QUADAS was used to evaluate the included articles' quality. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity of PET/CT (84%) was significantly higher than that of PET (60%), and the pooled specificity of PET (98%) was markedly higher than that for PET/CT (94%). On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 87 and 95%, respectively. Only 1 PET study on a per-lesion basis, its sensitivity is 65.8 and specificity is 94.1%. CONCLUSIONS: PET and PET/CT are powerful imaging techniques for detection and characterization of PC. PET/CT can be used as a screening tool and it may be acceptable to use PET as a diagnosis tool.
Authors: Victoria G Aveson; Crisanta H Ilagan; Joanne F Chou; Mithat Gönen; Vinod P Balachandran; Jeffrey A Drebin; William R Jarnagin; Alice C Wei; T Peter Kingham; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Jack W Power; Philip J Dempsey; Andrew Yates; Helen Fenlon; Jurgen Mulsow; Conor Shields; Carmel G Cronin Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.629