| Literature DB >> 34887713 |
Weibo Wen1,2, Yongnan Piao1, Dongyuan Xu2, Xiangdan Li2.
Abstract
Purpose: The present systematic literature review and meta-analysis focused on examining the significance of total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) in predicting the prognosis of stages I/II non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on 18F-FDG PET parameters.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34887713 PMCID: PMC8629622 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7528971
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.161
Figure 1Flowchart of our study selection.
Features of included studies.
| Study | Year | Country | Study period | Follow-up duration (months) | Median age (range), years | No. of patients | TNM staging | End points | Study design | Histology | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suman et al. | 2020 | Japan | 2010.6–2016.10 | 44.8 | 73 (53–85) | 39 | I | OS PFS | Retro | Adenocarcinoma | Radiotherapy |
| Domachevsky et al. | 2015 | Israel | 2007–2012 | 60 | 68.7 ± 8.9 | 181 | I-II | OS | Retro | Adenocarcinoma | Surgery |
| Seong et al. | 2015 | Korea | 2006.2–2011.12 | 36.6 | 63.03 ± 10.01 | 248 | I | OS | Retro | Adenocarcinoma | Surgery |
| Seung et al. | 2013 | Korea | 2003.7–2006.12 | 60 | 63 (23–83) | 529 | I-II | OS DFS | Retro | Adenocarcinoma | Surgery |
| Charles et al. | 2013 | USA | 2007.5–2012.12 | 25.1 | 73.3 | 50 | I | OS RFS | Retro | Adenocarcinoma | Radiotherapy |
| Melloni et al. | 2013 | Italy | 2005.1–2011.1 | 21 (3–68) | 68(40–85) | 99 | I | PFS | Retro | Adenocarcinoma | Surgery |
| Abelson et al. | 2012 | USA | 2005.9–2009.12 | 13.2 | 80.1(57.6–93.4) | 84 | I | OS | Retro | Squamous cell carcinoma | Radiotherapy |
| Lin Y et al. | 2012 | Taiwan | 2009.1–2011.2 | 24(8–36) | 63(38–85) | 62 | I | PFS | Retro | Squamous cell carcinoma | Surgery |
Abbreviations: Retro = retrospective; PFS = progression-free survival; DFS = disease-free survival; RFS = recurrence-free survival; OS = overall survival.
18F-FDG PET imaging methods for enrolled articles.
| Study | Duration of fasting | Preinjection blood glucose test | Postinjection interval | Dose of 18F-FDG | Determination of cut-off values | Cut-off values | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MTV(cm3) | TLG | ||||||
| Suman et al. | 6 h | 150 mg/dL | 60 min | 400 MBq | ROC | 6.625 | NA |
| Domachevsky et al. | NA | NA | NA | 370–666 MBq | Others | 7.1 | NA |
| Seong et al. | 6 h | 140 mg/dL | 60 min | 5.5 MBq/kg | Others | 7.3 | 8.8 |
| Seung et al. | 6 h | 150 mg/dL | 50 min | 370 MBq | Others | 16 | 70 |
| Charles et al. | 4–6 h | 200 mg/dL | 60 min | 10–20 mCi | Others | NA | NA |
| Melloni et al. | 6 h | 180 mg/dl | 60 min | 370 MBq | Others | 2.95 | 9.61 |
| Abelson et al. | 4–8 h | 160 mg/dl | 45–60 min | 10–18 mCi | Others | NA | NA |
| Lin et al. | 4 h | NA | 45 min | 370 MBq | ROC | 9.8 | NA |
Abbreviations: ROC, receiver operating characteristic; MTV, metabolic tumor volume; TLG, total lesion glycolysis; NA, not available.
Figure 2(a) Diagram showing the bias risk: judgment from researchers regarding the bias risk items shown in the form of percentages from the enrolled articles. (b) Summary of bias risk: judgment from researchers regarding the bias risk items from the enrolled articles.
Figure 3Forest plots of HR for PFS with MTV (a), TLG (b) and OS with MTV (c), TLG (d).
Subgroup of PFS of MTV and OS of TLG.
| Endpoint | Volumetric parameters | Factor | No. of studies | Heterogeneity test ( | Effect model | HR | 95% CI of HR | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFS | MTV | Region | ||||||
| Asian | 3 | 0.0, 0.606 | Fixed | 3.22 | 1.84, 5.62 | Significant | ||
| European | 1 | — | — | 3.29 | 1.27, 8.52 | Significant | ||
| American | 1 | 1.66 | 0.44, 8.1 | Insignificant | ||||
| Cut-off method | ||||||||
| ROC | 1 | — | — | 4.07 | 1.25, 13.25 | Significant | ||
| Others | 4 | 0.0, 0.703 | Fixed | 2.89 | 1.75, 4.75 | Significant | ||
| Analysis method | ||||||||
| Multivariate analysis | 2 | 0.0, 0.370 | Fixed | 3.01 | 1.59, 5.67 | Significant | ||
| Univariate analysis | 3 | 0.0, 0.644 | Fixed | 3.08 | 1.58, 5.99 | Significant | ||
|
| ||||||||
| OS | TLG | Region | ||||||
| Asian | 4 | 0.0, 0.455 | Fixed | 2.17 | 1.46, 3.23 | Significant | ||
| American | 1 | — | — | 2.13 | 0.75, 6.04 | Insignificant | ||
| Cut-off method | ||||||||
| ROC | 1 | — | — | 3.73 | 0.84, 16.51 | Insignificant | ||
| Others | 4 | 0.0, 0.559 | Fixed | 2.09 | 1.42, 3.07 | Significant | ||
| Analysis method | ||||||||
| Multivariate analysis | 3 | 0.0, 0.890 | Fixed | 2.85 | 1.68, 4.83 | Significant | ||
| Univariate analysis | 2 | 0.0, 0.577 | Fixed | 1.65 | 0.97, 2.79 | Insignificant | ||
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; MTV, metabolic tumor volume; TLG, total lesion glycolysis; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.