Jing Zhou1, Zhengxing Gou2, Renhui Wu1, Yuan Yuan1, Guiquan Yu1, Yigang Zhao1. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fuling Central Hospital of Chongqing City, No. 2 Gaosuntang Road, Fuling District, Chongqing, 408000, China. skysky999@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, Sodium Fluoride (NaF) PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two evaluators independently extracted the sensitivity, specificity, the numbers of true and false positives, and true and false negatives. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each method. We calculated the tests' diagnostic odds ratios (DOR); drew the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves; and obtained the areas under the curves (AUC), Q* values, and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The per-patient pooled sensitivities of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and BS were 0.97, 0.87, 0.96, 0.91, and 0.86, respectively. The pooled specificities were 1.00, 0.99, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.95, respectively. The pooled DOR values were 504.16, 673.67, 242.63, and 114.44, respectively. The AUC were 1.00, 0.99, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.95, respectively. The per-lesion pooled sensitivities of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone imaging were 0.88, 0.80, 0.97, 0.81 and 0.68, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to the meta-analysis, PSMA-PET/CT had the highest per-patient sensitivity and specificity in detecting bone metastases with prostate cancer. The sensitivities of NaF-PET/CT and MRI were better than those for choline-PET/CT and BS. The specificity of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly better than BS. Others were similar. For per-lesion, NaF-PET/CT had the highest sensitivity, PSMA-PET/CT had higher sensitivity than choline-PET/CT and MRI, and BS had the lowest sensitivity.
OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, Sodium Fluoride (NaF) PET/CT, MRI, and bone scintigraphy (BS) in detecting bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles published between January 1990 and September 2018. Two evaluators independently extracted the sensitivity, specificity, the numbers of true and false positives, and true and false negatives. We calculated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each method. We calculated the tests' diagnostic odds ratios (DOR); drew the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves; and obtained the areas under the curves (AUC), Q* values, and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The per-patient pooled sensitivities of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and BS were 0.97, 0.87, 0.96, 0.91, and 0.86, respectively. The pooled specificities were 1.00, 0.99, 0.97, 0.96, and 0.95, respectively. The pooled DOR values were 504.16, 673.67, 242.63, and 114.44, respectively. The AUC were 1.00, 0.99, 0.99, 0.98, and 0.95, respectively. The per-lesion pooled sensitivities of PSMA-PET/CT, choline-PET/CT, NaF-PET/CT, MRI, and bone imaging were 0.88, 0.80, 0.97, 0.81 and 0.68, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: According to the meta-analysis, PSMA-PET/CT had the highest per-patient sensitivity and specificity in detecting bone metastases with prostate cancer. The sensitivities of NaF-PET/CT and MRI were better than those for choline-PET/CT and BS. The specificity of PSMA-PET/CT was significantly better than BS. Others were similar. For per-lesion, NaF-PET/CT had the highest sensitivity, PSMA-PET/CT had higher sensitivity than choline-PET/CT and MRI, and BS had the lowest sensitivity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone; Meta-analysis; Metastases; Positron emission tomography/computed tomography; Prostate cancer
Authors: Ivan Jambor; Anna Kuisma; Susan Ramadan; Riikka Huovinen; Minna Sandell; Sami Kajander; Jukka Kemppainen; Esa Kauppila; Joakim Auren; Harri Merisaari; Jani Saunavaara; Tommi Noponen; Heikki Minn; Hannu J Aronen; Marko Seppänen Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: M Beheshti; F M Mottaghy; F Paycha; F F F Behrendt; T Van den Wyngaert; I Fogelman; K Strobel; M Celli; S Fanti; F Giammarile; B Krause; W Langsteger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Helle D Zacho; Julie B Nielsen; Ali Afshar-Oromieh; Uwe Haberkorn; Nandita deSouza; Katja De Paepe; Katja Dettmann; Niels C Langkilde; Christian Haarmark; Rune V Fisker; Dennis T Arp; Jesper Carl; Jørgen B Jensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: R Venkitaraman; G J R Cook; D P Dearnaley; C C Parker; V Khoo; R Eeles; R A Huddart; A Horwich; S A Sohaib Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Andrea B Apolo; Liza Lindenberg; Joanna H Shih; Esther Mena; Joseph W Kim; Jong C Park; Anna Alikhani; Yolanda Y McKinney; Juanita Weaver; Baris Turkbey; Howard L Parnes; Lauren V Wood; Ravi A Madan; James L Gulley; William L Dahut; Karen A Kurdziel; Peter L Choyke Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Wouter Huysse; Frédéric Lecouvet; Paolo Castellucci; Piet Ost; Valerie Lambrecht; Carlos Artigas; Marie-Laurence Denis; Kathia De Man; Louke Delrue; Lennart Jans; Aurélie De Bruycker; Filip De Vos; Gert De Meerleer; Karel Decaestecker; Valerie Fonteyne; Bieke Lambert Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2017-10-17
Authors: Maurits Wondergem; Friso M van der Zant; Remco J J Knol; Anne Marij G Burgers; Siebe D Bos; Igle J de Jong; Jan Pruim Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Frédéric Bois; Camille Noirot; Sébastien Dietemann; Ismini C Mainta; Thomas Zilli; Valentina Garibotto; Martin A Walter Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-12-15
Authors: Fernando Ruiz Santiago; Antonio Jesús Láinez Ramos-Bossini; Yì Xiáng J Wáng; José Pablo Martínez Barbero; Jade García Espinosa; Alberto Martínez Martínez Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2022-07
Authors: Barbara J Amorim; Vinay Prabhu; Sara S Marco; Debra Gervais; Willian E Palmer; Pedram Heidari; Mark Vangel; Philip J Saylor; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Cristina Emiko Ueda; Paulo Schiavom Duarte; Luciana Audi de Castroneves; George Barbério Coura-Filho; Heitor Naoki Sado; Marcelo Tatit Sapienza; Ana Oliveira Hoff; Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-09-28
Authors: Sungmin Woo; Soleen Ghafoor; Anton S Becker; Sangwon Han; Andreas G Wibmer; Hedvig Hricak; Irene A Burger; Heiko Schöder; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: Eur J Hybrid Imaging Date: 2020-09-09