Seong-Jang Kim1,2, Phillip J Koo3, Kyoungjune Pak4, In-Ju Kim4, Keunyoung Kim4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, 50612, Republic of Korea. growthkim@daum.net. 2. BioMedical Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, 50612, Republic of Korea. growthkim@daum.net. 3. Diagnostic Imaging, Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, 2946 E. Banner Gateway Drive, Gilbert, AZ, 85234, USA. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, 49241, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of C-11 choline and C-11 acetate positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for lymph node (LN) staging in bladder cancer (BC) patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database, from the earliest available date of indexing through June 30, 2017, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of C-11 choline and C-11 acetate PET/CT for LN staging in BC. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Across 10 studies (282 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 0.66 (95% CI 0.54-0.75) without heterogeneity (χ2 = 12.4, p = 0.19) and a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.76-0.95) with heterogeneity (χ2 = 29.1, p = 0.00). Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 5.8 (95% CI 2.7-12.7) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.39 (95% CI 0.28-0.53). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15 (95% CI 6-38). In meta-regression analysis, the study design (prospective vs retrospective) was the source of the study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: C-11 choline and C-11 acetate PET/CT shows a low sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of metastatic LNs in patients with BC. Moreover, heterogeneity among the studies should be considered a limitation. Further large multicenter studies would be necessary to substantiate the diagnostic accuracy of C-11 choline and C-11 acetate PET/CT for this purpose.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of C-11 choline and C-11 acetate positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for lymph node (LN) staging in bladder cancer (BC) patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database, from the earliest available date of indexing through June 30, 2017, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of C-11 choline and C-11 acetate PET/CT for LN staging in BC. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Across 10 studies (282 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 0.66 (95% CI 0.54-0.75) without heterogeneity (χ2 = 12.4, p = 0.19) and a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.76-0.95) with heterogeneity (χ2 = 29.1, p = 0.00). Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 5.8 (95% CI 2.7-12.7) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.39 (95% CI 0.28-0.53). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15 (95% CI 6-38). In meta-regression analysis, the study design (prospective vs retrospective) was the source of the study heterogeneity. CONCLUSION:C-11 choline and C-11 acetate PET/CT shows a low sensitivity and moderate specificity for the detection of metastatic LNs in patients with BC. Moreover, heterogeneity among the studies should be considered a limitation. Further large multicenter studies would be necessary to substantiate the diagnostic accuracy of C-11 choline and C-11 acetate PET/CT for this purpose.
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: Nobuyuki Oyama; Tom R Miller; Farrokh Dehdashti; Barry A Siegel; Keith C Fischer; Jeff M Michalski; Adam S Kibel; Gerald L Andriole; Joel Picus; Michael J Welch Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Tobias Maurer; Michael Souvatzoglou; Hubert Kübler; Katharina Opercan; Stefan Schmidt; Ken Herrmann; Jens Stollfuss; Gregor Weirich; Bernhard Haller; Jürgen E Gschwend; Markus Schwaiger; Bernd J Krause; Uwe Treiber Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew M Kates; Pilar Herrero; Carmen Dence; Pablo Soto; Muthayyah Srinivasan; Deborah G Delano; Ali Ehsani; Robert J Gropler Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Igle J de Jong; Jan Pruim; Philip H Elsinga; Maud M G J Jongen; Han J A Mensink; Willem Vaalburg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-07-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Michał Frączek; Hubert Kamecki; Anna Kamecka; Roman Sosnowski; Katarzyna Sklinda; Marcin Czarniecki; Leszek Królicki; Jerzy Walecki Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-10
Authors: Antti Salminen; Ivan Jambor; Harri Merisaari; Otto Ettala; Johanna Virtanen; Ilmari Koskinen; Erik Veskimae; Jukka Sairanen; Pekka Taimen; Jukka Kemppainen; Heikki Minn; Peter J Boström Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Vincenzo Cuccurullo; Giuseppe Danilo Di Stasio; Francesco Manti; Pierpaolo Arcuri; Rocco Damiano; Giuseppe Lucio Cascini Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-11
Authors: Antonio Gómez Caamaño; Ana M García Vicente; Pablo Maroto; Alfredo Rodríguez Antolín; Julián Sanz; María Almudena Vera González; Miguel Ángel Climent Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 3.677