Manaf H Younis1,2, Hasan A Abu-Hijleh3, Osama O Aldahamsheh3, Abdulrahman Abualruz4, Lukman Thalib5. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Jackson Memorial Hospital, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA. 2. Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, Doha, Qatar. 4. Department of Radiology, Wake Forest Baptist Hospital, Winston- Salem, North Carolina, USA. 5. Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, Lthalib@qu.edu.qa.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this meta-analysis was to assess the use of FDG-PET in the diagnosis of primary bone and soft tissue sarcomas. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, the diagnostic accuracy region for detecting and grading sarcomas were pooled using bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) models. Subgroup analysis included pooling soft tissue and bone sarcomas separately, and sensitivity analysis included high-quality studies. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Of the 1,258 papers screened, 21 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET combined with CT for the detection of sarcomas were 89.2 and 76.3%, respectively. These diagnostic accuracy measures were higher when combined with CT than those of PDG-PET alone. Diagnostic accuracy for bone and soft tissue lesions were comparable but slightly better for soft tissue tumors. Pooling only the high-quality studies with low risk of bias yielded a sensitivity of 88.5% and specificity reduced to 65.6%. There was no evidence for publication bias, but significant heterogeneity among the studies was apparent. This study also showed that FDG-PET can efficiently differentiate between benign and malignant tumors, with a mean standard uptake value of maximally 2.52 units in benign and 6.81 units in malignant tumors (89.2% sensitivity and 75.1% specificity). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate FDG-PET can efficiently differentiate between benign and malignant bone and soft tissue tumors. We also found that FDG-PET improves accuracy in diagnosing soft tissue sarcomas when combined with CT.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this meta-analysis was to assess the use of FDG-PET in the diagnosis of primary bone and soft tissue sarcomas. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Several databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, the diagnostic accuracy region for detecting and grading sarcomas were pooled using bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic (HSROC) models. Subgroup analysis included pooling soft tissue and bone sarcomas separately, and sensitivity analysis included high-quality studies. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: Of the 1,258 papers screened, 21 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET combined with CT for the detection of sarcomas were 89.2 and 76.3%, respectively. These diagnostic accuracy measures were higher when combined with CT than those of PDG-PET alone. Diagnostic accuracy for bone and soft tissue lesions were comparable but slightly better for soft tissue tumors. Pooling only the high-quality studies with low risk of bias yielded a sensitivity of 88.5% and specificity reduced to 65.6%. There was no evidence for publication bias, but significant heterogeneity among the studies was apparent. This study also showed that FDG-PET can efficiently differentiate between benign and malignant tumors, with a mean standard uptake value of maximally 2.52 units in benign and 6.81 units in malignant tumors (89.2% sensitivity and 75.1% specificity). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate FDG-PET can efficiently differentiate between benign and malignant bone and soft tissue tumors. We also found that FDG-PET improves accuracy in diagnosing soft tissue sarcomas when combined with CT.
Authors: F Dehdashti; B A Siegel; L K Griffeth; M J Fusselman; D D Trask; A H McGuire; D J McGuire Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R E Ferner; J D Lucas; M J O'Doherty; R A Hughes; M A Smith; B F Cronin; J Bingham Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: H Watanabe; T Shinozaki; T Yanagawa; J Aoki; M Tokunaga; T Inoue; K Endo; S Mohara; K Sano; K Takagishi Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Br Date: 2000-07
Authors: O E Nieweg; J Pruim; R J van Ginkel; H J Hoekstra; A M Paans; W M Molenaar; H S Koops; W Vaalburg Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: K Strobel; U E Exner; K D M Stumpe; T F Hany; B Bode; K Mende; P Veit-Haibach; G K von Schulthess; Juerg Hodler Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Colleen M Costelloe; Hubert H Chuang; Beth A Chasen; Tinsu Pan; Patricia S Fox; Roland L Bassett; John E Madewell Journal: J Cancer Date: 2013-08-09 Impact factor: 4.207