Literature DB >> 31265330

Diagnostic accuracy of F18 flucholine PET/CT for preoperative lymph node staging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seong-Jang Kim1,2,3, Sang Woo Lee4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the current study was to investiagte the diagnostic accuracy of F18 flucholine (FCH) positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) for pre-operative lymph node (LN) staging in newly diagnosed prostate cancer (PCa) patients using meta-analysis.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase from the earliest available date of indexing through December 31, 2018, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of F18 FCH PET/CT for preoperative LN staging in newly diagnosed PCa. 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 seven studies (627 patients), the pooled sensitivity was 0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.42-0.70)] and a pooled specificity of 0.94 [95% CI (0.89-0.97)]. Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 10.2 (95% CI; 5.0-21.0) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.46 (95% CI; 0.33-0.64). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 22 (95% CI; 9-54).
CONCLUSIONS: F18 FCH PET/CT shows a low sensitivity and high specificity for the detection of metastatic LNs in patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Also, F18 FCH PET/CT is only useful for confirmation of LN metastasis (when positive) in PCa patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: F18 FCH PET/CT demonstrates low sensitivity but high specificity for diagnosis of metastatic LNs in patients with newly diagnosed PCa. Also, F18 FCH PET/CT is only useful for confirmation of LN metastasis (when positive) in PCa patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31265330      PMCID: PMC6732934          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  29 in total

1.  A likelihood ratio approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic studies.

Authors:  D Stengel; K Bauwens; J Sehouli; A Ekkernkamp; F Porzsolt
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.136

2.  Cancer statistics, 2018.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed.

Authors:  Jonathan J Deeks; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability.

Authors:  Taye H Hamza; Hans C van Houwelingen; Theo Stijnen
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-23       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Comparison between conventional imaging (abdominal-pelvic computed tomography and bone scan) and [(18)F]choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging for the initial staging of patients with intermediate- tohigh-risk prostate cancer: A retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Laura Evangelista; Marino Cimitan; Fabio Zattoni; Andrea Guttilla; Filiberto Zattoni; Giorgio Saladini
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 1.612

Review 6.  Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated.

Authors:  S G Thompson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1994-11-19

7.  [18F]fluoromethylcholine (FCH) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for lymph node staging of prostate cancer: a prospective study of 210 patients.

Authors:  Mads H Poulsen; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Poul F Høilund-Carlsen; Henrik Petersen; Oke Gerke; Signe Inglev Steffansen; Niels Marcussen; Niels Svolgaard; Werner Vach; Ulla Geertsen; Steen Walter
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-04-23       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

Authors:  Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan J Deeks; Constantine Gatsonis; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 9.  The role of radical prostatectomy and lymph node dissection in lymph node-positive prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Georgios Gakis; Stephen A Boorjian; Alberto Briganti; Steven Joniau; Guram Karazanashvili; R Jeffrey Karnes; Agostino Mattei; Shahrokh F Shariat; Arnulf Stenzl; Manfred Wirth; Christian G Stief
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Dual tracer 11C-choline and FDG-PET in the diagnosis of biochemical prostate cancer relapse after radical treatment.

Authors:  José A Richter; Macarena Rodríguez; Jorge Rioja; Iván Peñuelas; Josep Martí-Climent; Puy Garrastachu; Gemma Quincoces; Javier Zudaire; María J García-Velloso
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2009-06-19       Impact factor: 3.488

View more
  2 in total

1.  Is 18F-FDG PET/CT an Accurate Way to Detect Lymph Node Metastasis in Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hamid Dahmarde; Fateme Parooie; Morteza Salarzaei
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2020-07-18       Impact factor: 3.161

2.  Efficacy of repeated PSMA PET-directed radiotherapy for oligorecurrent prostate cancer after initial curative therapy.

Authors:  Christoph Henkenberens; Ann-Kathrin Oehus; Thorsten Derlin; Frank Bengel; Tobias L Ross; Markus A Kuczyk; Stefan Janssen; Hans Christiansen; Christoph A J von Klot
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.621

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.