| Literature DB >> 31861469 |
Marie Meyer1, Marie Nicod Lalonde1, Nathalie Testart1, Mario Jreige1, Christel Kamani1, Sarah Boughdad1, Barbara Muoio2, Fabio Becce3,4, Niklaus Schaefer1,4, Christian Candrian5, Luca Giovanella6,7, John O Prior1,4, Giorgio Treglia1,4,6,8, Martin Riegger9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor-induced or oncogenic osteomalacia (TIO) is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome in which osteomalacia is a consequence of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) secretion by a mesenchymal tumor. The localization of the culprit lesion in patients with TIO is often challenging. Several studies have evaluated the detection rate (DR) of these tumors using somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography (SSTR-PET/CT). We aimed to summarize literature findings on this topic providing pooled estimates of DR.Entities:
Keywords: PET; culprit tumor; detection rate; meta-analysis; osteomalacia; somatostatin; systematic review
Year: 2019 PMID: 31861469 PMCID: PMC7169446 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10010002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Flow chart of the search for eligible studies on the detection rate of culprit tumors causing osteomalacia using somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography (SSTR-PET/CT).
Basic study and patient characteristics of the included studies.
| Authors | Year | Country | Study Design | Type of Patients Evaluated | Number of Patients with TIO Referred for SSTR-PET/CT | Age (years) | %Male | FGF23 Serum Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John et al. [ | 2019 | India | Retrospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 16 | Mean: 45 (18–61) | 75% | 112–1500 RU/mL |
| Pal et al. [ | 2019 | India | Retrospective multicentre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 21 | Mean: 40.2 (19–58) | 38% | 102–6435 RU/mL |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2018 | China | Retrospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO and negative 99mTc-octreotide SPECT | 37 | Mean: 44 (17–75) | 59% | NR |
| Ding et al. [ | 2018 | China | Retrospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 54 | Mean: 41.2 (15–82) | 63% | NR |
| Paquet et al. [ | 2018 | France | Retrospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 15 | Mean: 53 (23–83) | 67% | 29–1916 RU/mL |
| Singh et al. [ | 2017 | India | Retrospective single centre | Patients with suspected TIO | 17 | Mean: 42.4 (18–70) | 47% | 59–12000 RU/mL |
| Satyaraddi et al. [ | 2017 | India | Retrospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 8 | Mean: 46.6 (18–74) | 50% | 202–3556 RU/mL |
| El-Maouche et al. [ | 2016 | USA | Prospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 11 | Mean: 38 (19–60) | 45% | 105–5939 pg/mL |
| Bhavani et al. [ | 2016 | India | Retrospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 10 | Mean: 40 (13–53) | 80% | 152–2323 RU/mL |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2015 | China | Retrospective single centre | Patients with suspected TIO | 54 | Mean: 42.2 (19–68) | 48% | NR |
| Agrawal et al. [ | 2015 | India | Retrospective single centre | Patients with suspected TIO | 6 | Mean: 37.5 (26–55) | 17% | 148–6685 RU/mL |
| Breer et al. [ | 2014 | Germany | Retrospective single centre | Patients with suspected TIO | 5 | Mean: 50.2 (41–62) | 40% | <9.9–78.3 pg/nL |
| Jadhav et al. [ | 2014 | India | Retrospective single centre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 7 | Mean: 35.7 (22–49) | 71% | 109–6000 RU/mL |
| Clifton-Bligh et al. [ | 2013 | Australia | Retrospective multicentre | Patients with clinical and biochemical diagnosis of TIO | 6 | Mean: 43.5 (28–65) | 50% | 59–1940 ng/L |
Legend: FGF23 = Fibroblast Growth Factor-23; TIO = Tumor-Induced Osteomalacia; PET/CT = Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography; SPECT = Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography; SSTR = somatostatin receptor.
Technical aspects of the included studies.
| Authors | Hybrid Imaging Modality | Tracer Used | Injected Activity | Time Interval between Radiotracer Injection and Image Acquisition | Image Analysis | Other Functional Imaging Modalities Performed for Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 75–185 MBq | 30–45 min | Visual | bone scintigraphy |
| Pal et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE, 68Ga-DOTANOC | NR | NR | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | 99mTc-octreotide SPECT/CT |
| Zhang et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 44–111 MBq | 40–60 min | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | 99mTc-octreotide SPECT/CT |
| Ding et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | NR | NR | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | |
| Paquet et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATOC | 1.6 MBq/kg | 60 min | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, BTV) | 111In-octreotide SPECT/CT |
| Singh et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTANOC | 111–148 MBq | 45 ± 15 min | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | |
| Satyaraddi et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | NR | NR | Visual | 18F-FDG PET/CT |
| El-Maouche et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 185 MBq | 60 min | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | 111In-octreotide SPECT/CT |
| Bhavani et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTANOC | 111–185 MBq | 60 min | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | bone scintigraphy |
| Zhang et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 111–148 MBq | 45 min | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | |
| Agrawal et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 1.5 MBq/kg | 45–60 min | Visual | 18F-FDG PET/CT |
| Breer et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 58–110 MBq | 20 min | Visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax) | 111In-octreotide SPECT/CT |
| Jadhav et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 74–111 MBq | 60–90 min | Visual | 99mTc-octreotide SPECT/CT |
| Clifton-Bligh et al. [ | PET/CT | 68Ga-DOTATATE | 103–226 MBq | 45–60 min | Visual | bone scintigraphy |
Legend: BTV = biologic tumor volume; 18F-FDG = fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose; 68Ga = gallium-68; MBq = Mega Becquerel; min = minutes; NR = Not reported; PET/CT = Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography; SPECT/CT = Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography; SUVmax = maximal Standardized Uptake Value.
Diagnostic accuracy data of SSTR-PET/CT in the included studies.
| Authors | Detection Rate | Site of Culprit Lesion Detected by SSTR-PET/CT | Number of Tumors Detected by SSTR-PET/CT with Histopathology | Histological Type of Culprit Tumors Detected by SSTR-PET/CT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cranio-Facial | Trunk | Upper Limbs | Lower Limbs | Metastatic | ||||
| John et al. [ | 13/16 (81.3%) | 2 | 1 | 10 | 10/13 | 10 PMT | ||
| Pal et al. [ | 20/21 (95.2%) | 5 | 3 | 12 | 15/20 | 11 PMT,2 HP, 1 GCT, 1 HE | ||
| Zhang et al. [ | 37/37 (100%) | 5 | 11 | 2 | 19 | 37/37 | 35 PMT, 2 SCT | |
| Ding et al. [ | 53/54 (98.1%) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | 52/53 | NR |
| Paquet et al. [ | 8/11 (72.7%) | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8/8 | 6 PMT, 1 HE, 1 NR | ||
| Singh et al. [ | 9/17 (52.9%) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7/9 | 7 PMT | |
| Satyaraddi et al. [ | 8/8 (100%) | 1 | 7 | 5/8 | 5 PMT | |||
| El-Maouche et al. [ | 6/11 (54.5%) | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5/6 | 5 PMT | |
| Bhavani et al. [ | 9/10 (90%) | 3 | 1 | 5 | 8/9 | 6 PMT, 1 HP, 1 SCT | ||
| Zhang et al. [ | 32/32 (100%) | 7 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 32/32 | 31 PMT, 1 OT | |
| Agrawal et al. [ | 5/6 (83.3%) | 2 | 3 | 5/5 | 2 PMT, 2 HP, 1 OT | |||
| Breer et al. [ | 5/5 (100%) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5/5 | 3 PMT, 2 OT | |
| Jadhav et al. [ | 7/7 (100%) | 1 | 6 | 4/7 | NR | |||
| Clifton-Bligh et al. [ | 6/6 (100%) | 1 | 5 | 6/6 | 6 PMT | |||
Legend: * = excluded from the meta-analysis for possible data overlap; HE = hemangioma; HP = hemangiopericytoma; GCT = giant cell tumor; NR = Not retrieved; OT = odontogenic tumor; PMT = phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor; SCT = spindle cell tumor; SSTR-PET/CT = Somatostatin Receptor Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography.
Figure 2Overall quality assessment of the studies included in the systematic review according to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.
Figure 3Forest plot of individual studies and pooled detection rate of culprit tumors causing osteomalacia using SSTR-PET/CT, including 95% confidence intervals. The size of the squares indicates the weight of each study.
Figure 4Forest plot of individual studies and pooled detection rate of culprit tumors causing osteomalacia using 68Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT, including 95% confidence intervals. The size of the squares indicates the weight of each study.
Figure 5Funnel plot of the included studies about the detection rate of culprit tumors causing osteomalacia using SSTR-PET/CT. The plot demonstrates an asymmetric distribution of the outcome measure suggesting the presence of a possible bias. The little circles in the images represent the outcome measure of the single studies.