Veronika Ballova1, Barbara Muoio2, Domenico Albano3, Francesco Bertagna3, Luca Canziani4, Michele Ghielmini5,6, Luca Ceriani7,8, Giorgio Treglia5,7,9. 1. Department of Oncology and Hematology, Cantonal Hospital Baden, CH-5404 Baden, Switzerland. 2. Clinic of Medical Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, CH-6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland. 3. Nuclear Medicine, University of Brescia and Spedali Civili Brescia, IT-25123 Brescia, Italy. 4. Department of Haematology and Oncology, Niguarda Hospital, IT-20162 Milan, Italy. 5. Academic Education Research and Innovation Area, General Directorate, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, CH-6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland. 6. Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI), CH-6900 Lugano, Switzerland. 7. Clinic of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Imaging Institute of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, CH-6900 Lugano, Switzerland. 8. Institute of Oncology Research, CH-6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland. 9. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, University of Lausanne and Lausanne University Hospital, CH-1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET or PET/CT) for the detection of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). As there is no clear consensus about the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging methods, we performed a meta-analysis on this topic. METHODS: A comprehensive computer literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases through December 2019 was performed. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detection of PTLD were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies reporting data on the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in 336 transplant recipients were included in the systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for detection of PTLD were 89.7% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 84.6-93.2%) and 90.9% (95%CI: 85.9-94.3%), respectively. Pooled LR+, LR-, and DOR were 8.9 (95%CI: 5.7-14), 0.13 (95%CI: 0.08-0.2), and 70.4 (95%CI: 35.4-140), respectively. A significant heterogeneity among studies was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited literature data, 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated good diagnostic performance for the detection of PTLD, but large prospective studies are needed to strengthen these findings.
BACKGROUND: Some studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET or PET/CT) for the detection of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). As there is no clear consensus about the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging methods, we performed a meta-analysis on this topic. METHODS: A comprehensive computer literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases through December 2019 was performed. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detection of PTLD were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies reporting data on the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in 336 transplant recipients were included in the systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for detection of PTLD were 89.7% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 84.6-93.2%) and 90.9% (95%CI: 85.9-94.3%), respectively. Pooled LR+, LR-, and DOR were 8.9 (95%CI: 5.7-14), 0.13 (95%CI: 0.08-0.2), and 70.4 (95%CI: 35.4-140), respectively. A significant heterogeneity among studies was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited literature data, 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated good diagnostic performance for the detection of PTLD, but large prospective studies are needed to strengthen these findings.
Authors: Felipe Montes de Jesus; V Vergote; W Noordzij; D Dierickx; R A J O Dierckx; A Diepstra; T Tousseyn; O Gheysens; T C Kwee; C M Deroose; A W J M Glaudemans Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 4.241