Florent L Besson1,2, Philippe Chaumet-Riffaud3,4, Margot Playe3, Nicolas Noel5, Olivier Lambotte5, Cécile Goujard5, Alain Prigent3,4, Emmanuel Durand3,4. 1. Department of Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine, Bicêtre University Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. florent.besson@aphp.fr. 2. IR4M - UMR8081, Université Paris Sud, Université Paris Saclay, CNRS, 91404, Orsay, France. florent.besson@aphp.fr. 3. Department of Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine, Bicêtre University Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France. 4. IR4M - UMR8081, Université Paris Sud, Université Paris Saclay, CNRS, 91404, Orsay, France. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Bicêtre University Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, 94275, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the contribution of FDG PET to the diagnostic assessment of fever of unknown origin (FUO), taking into account the diagnostic limitations resulting from the composite nature of this entity. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched from 2000 to September 2015. Original articles fulfilling the following criteria were included: (1) FUO as the initial diagnosis, (2) no immunosuppressed or nosocomial condition, (3) final diagnosis not based on PET, (4) a follow-up period specified, (5) adult population, and (6) availability of adapted data for calculation of odds ratios (ORs). ORs were computed for each study and then pooled using a random effects model. Stratification-based sensitivity analyses were finally performed using the following prespecified criteria: (a) study design, (b) PET device, (c) geographic area, and (d) follow-up period. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of the 14 included studies showed that normal PET findings led to an increase in the absolute final diagnostic rate of 36 % abnormal PET findings to an increase of 83 %, corresponding to a pooled OR of 8.94 (95 % CI 4.18 - 19.12, Z = 5.65; p < 0.00001). The design of the studies influenced the results (OR 2.92, 95 % CI 1.00 - 8.53 for prospective studies; OR 18,57, 95 % CI 7.57 - 45.59 for retrospective studies; p = 0.01), whereas devices (dedicated or hybrid), geographic area and follow-up period did not. CONCLUSION: Abnormal PET findings are associated with a substantially increased final diagnostic rate in FUO. Consequently, FDG PET could be considered for inclusion in the first-line diagnostic work-up of FUO. Further randomized prospective studies with standardized FDG PET procedures are warranted to confirm this first-line position.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantify the contribution of FDG PET to the diagnostic assessment of fever of unknown origin (FUO), taking into account the diagnostic limitations resulting from the composite nature of this entity. METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched from 2000 to September 2015. Original articles fulfilling the following criteria were included: (1) FUO as the initial diagnosis, (2) no immunosuppressed or nosocomial condition, (3) final diagnosis not based on PET, (4) a follow-up period specified, (5) adult population, and (6) availability of adapted data for calculation of odds ratios (ORs). ORs were computed for each study and then pooled using a random effects model. Stratification-based sensitivity analyses were finally performed using the following prespecified criteria: (a) study design, (b) PET device, (c) geographic area, and (d) follow-up period. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of the 14 included studies showed that normal PET findings led to an increase in the absolute final diagnostic rate of 36 % abnormal PET findings to an increase of 83 %, corresponding to a pooled OR of 8.94 (95 % CI 4.18 - 19.12, Z = 5.65; p < 0.00001). The design of the studies influenced the results (OR 2.92, 95 % CI 1.00 - 8.53 for prospective studies; OR 18,57, 95 % CI 7.57 - 45.59 for retrospective studies; p = 0.01), whereas devices (dedicated or hybrid), geographic area and follow-up period did not. CONCLUSION: Abnormal PET findings are associated with a substantially increased final diagnostic rate in FUO. Consequently, FDG PET could be considered for inclusion in the first-line diagnostic work-up of FUO. Further randomized prospective studies with standardized FDG PET procedures are warranted to confirm this first-line position.
Authors: Francois Jamar; John Buscombe; Arturo Chiti; Paul E Christian; Dominique Delbeke; Kevin J Donohoe; Ora Israel; Josep Martin-Comin; Alberto Signore Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: T Mochizuki; E Tsukamoto; Y Kuge; K Kanegae; S Zhao; K Hikosaka; M Hosokawa; M Kohanawa; N Tamaki Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: H Balink; S S Tan; N J G M Veeger; F Holleman; B L F van Eck-Smit; R J Bennink; H J Verberne Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Marjolein Heuker; Jürgen W A Sijbesma; Rocío Aguilar Suárez; Johan R de Jong; Hendrikus H Boersma; Gert Luurtsema; Philip H Elsinga; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Gooitzen M van Dam; Jan Maarten van Dijl; Riemer H J A Slart; Marleen van Oosten Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Hussein Mahajna; Keren Vaknin; Jennifer Ben Shimol; Abdulla Watad; Arsalan Abu-Much; Naim Mahroum; Ora Shovman; Yehuda Shoenfeld; Howard Amital; Tima Davidson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 3.390