Seong-Jang Kim1, Sang-Woo Lee2, Shin Young Jeong2, Kyoungjune Pak3, Keunyoung Kim3. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea; BioMedical Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea; Department of Nuclear Medicine, College of Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Korea. Electronic address: growthkim@daum.net. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the detection of vascular prosthetic graft infection (VPGI) using a diagnostic accuracy test. METHODS: The MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases, from the earliest available date of indexing through March 31, 2018, were searched for results investigating the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for the detection of VPGI. We calculated the pooled sensitivities and specificities of included studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios, and obtained summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Across 10 studies (286 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.98) without heterogeneity (I2 = 40.2; 95% CI, 0.0-84.4; P = .09), and pooled specificity was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67-0.81) without heterogeneity (I2 = 39.9; 95% CI, 0.0-84.3; P = .09). Likelihood ratio syntheses showed an overall positive likelihood ratio of 3.7 (95% CI, 2.9-4.9) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.15). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 63 (95% CI, 23-173). The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve showed the area under the curve to be 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the high sensitivity and moderate specificity of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for the detection of VPGI. The clinical usefulness of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detection of VPGI should be validated through further large multicenter studies.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the detection of vascular prosthetic graft infection (VPGI) using a diagnostic accuracy test. METHODS: The MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases, from the earliest available date of indexing through March 31, 2018, were searched for results investigating the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for the detection of VPGI. We calculated the pooled sensitivities and specificities of included studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios, and obtained summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Across 10 studies (286 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.98) without heterogeneity (I2 = 40.2; 95% CI, 0.0-84.4; P = .09), and pooled specificity was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.67-0.81) without heterogeneity (I2 = 39.9; 95% CI, 0.0-84.3; P = .09). Likelihood ratio syntheses showed an overall positive likelihood ratio of 3.7 (95% CI, 2.9-4.9) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.15). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 63 (95% CI, 23-173). The hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve showed the area under the curve to be 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed the high sensitivity and moderate specificity of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for the detection of VPGI. The clinical usefulness of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detection of VPGI should be validated through further large multicenter studies.
Authors: Chiara Lauri; Alberto Signore; Andor W J M Glaudemans; Giorgio Treglia; Olivier Gheysens; Riemer H J A Slart; Roberto Iezzi; Niek H J Prakken; Eike Sebastian Debus; Susanne Honig; Anne Lejay; Nabil Chakfé Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Stephen Liddy; Andrew Mallia; Conor D Collins; Ronan P Killeen; Stephen Skehan; Jonathan D Dodd; Manil Subesinghe; David J Murphy Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Lars Husmann; Nadia Eberhard; Martin W Huellner; Bruno Ledergerber; Anna Mueller; Hannes Gruenig; Michael Messerli; Carlos-A Mestres; Zoran Rancic; Alexander Zimmermann; Barbara Hasse Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.379