Literature DB >> 35705874

Diagnostic performance of [18F]-FDG PET/MR in evaluating colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Seyed Ali Mirshahvalad1, Ricarda Hinzpeter2, Andres Kohan2, Reut Anconina3, Roshini Kulanthaivelu2, Claudia Ortega2, Ur Metser2, Patrick Veit-Haibach2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To calculate the diagnostic performance of [18F]-FDG PET/MR in colorectal cancer (CRC).
METHODS: This study was designed following the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. To be included, published original articles (until December 31, 2021) that met the following criteria were considered eligible: (1) evaluated [18F]-FDG PET/MR as the diagnostic method to detect CRC; (2) compared [18F]-FDG PET/MR with histopathology as the reference standard, or clinical/imaging composite follow-up when pathology was not available; (3) provided adequate crude data for meta-analysis. The diagnostic pooled measurements were calculated at patient and lesion levels. Regarding sub-group analysis, diagnostic measurements were calculated in "TNM staging," "T staging," "N staging," "M staging," and "liver metastasis" sub-groups. Additionally, we calculated the pooled performances in "rectal cancer: patient-level" and "rectal cancer: lesion-level" sub-groups. A hierarchical method was used to pool the performances. The bivariate model was conducted to find the summary points. Analyses were performed using STATA 16.
RESULTS: A total of 1534 patients from 18 studies were entered. The pooled sensitivities in CRC lesion detection (tumor, lymph nodes, and metastases) were 0.94 (95%CI: 0.89-0.97) and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.82-0.98) at patient-level and lesion-level, respectively. The pooled specificities were 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93) and 0.95 (95%CI: 0.90-0.98) at patient-level and lesion-level, respectively. In sub-groups, the highest sensitivity (0.97, 95%CI: 0.86-0.99) and specificity (0.99, 95%CI: 0.84-1.00) were calculated for "M staging" and "rectal cancer: lesion-level," respectively. The lowest sensitivity (0.81, 95%CI: 0.65-0.91) and specificity (0.79, 95%CI: 0.52-0.93) were calculated for "N staging" and "T staging," respectively.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed an overall high diagnostic performance for [18F]-FDG PET/MR in detecting CRC lesions/metastases. Thus, this modality can play a significant role in several clinical scenarios in CRC staging and restaging. Specifically, one of the main strengths of this modality is ruling out the existence of CRC lesions/metastases. Finally, the overall diagnostic performance was not found to be affected in the post-treatment setting.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colorectal; Diagnosis; FDG; Meta-analysis; PET/MR

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35705874     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05871-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   10.057


  48 in total

Review 1.  Whole-body PET/MRI for colorectal cancer staging: Is it the way forward?

Authors:  Dong Ho Lee; Jeong Min Lee
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 2.  Global burden of colorectal cancer: emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies.

Authors:  NaNa Keum; Edward Giovannucci
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 46.802

3.  Is It Time to Introduce PET/CT in Colon Cancer Guidelines?

Authors:  Anna Margherita Maffione; Domenico Rubello; Paola Caroli; Patrick M Colletti; Federica Matteucci
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 7.794

Review 4.  Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Review.

Authors:  Leah H Biller; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  M Barral; C Eveno; C Hoeffel; M Boudiaf; P Bazeries; R Foucher; M Pocard; A Dohan; P Soyer
Journal:  J Visc Surg       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 2.043

Review 6.  Colorectal cancer: Parametric evaluation of morphological, functional and molecular tomographic imaging.

Authors:  Pier Paolo Mainenti; Arnaldo Stanzione; Salvatore Guarino; Valeria Romeo; Lorenzo Ugga; Federica Romano; Giovanni Storto; Simone Maurea; Arturo Brunetti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-09-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Imaging Advances in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Svetlana Balyasnikova; Gina Brown
Journal:  Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep       Date:  2016-04-27

Review 8.  Advanced imaging of colorectal cancer: From anatomy to molecular imaging.

Authors:  Roberto García-Figueiras; Sandra Baleato-González; Anwar R Padhani; Ana Marhuenda; Antonio Luna; Lidia Alcalá; Ana Carballo-Castro; Ana Álvarez-Castro
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2016-04-30

Review 9.  Colorectal cancer, screening and primary care: A mini literature review.

Authors:  Athanasios Hadjipetrou; Dimitrios Anyfantakis; Christos G Galanakis; Miltiades Kastanakis; Serafim Kastanakis
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-09-07       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  The Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in (Future) Cancer Staging: Note the Nodes.

Authors:  Tom W J Scheenen; Patrik Zamecnik
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 10.065

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  From Dukes-MAC Staging System to Molecular Classification: Evolving Concepts in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Laura Banias; Ioan Jung; Rebeca Chiciudean; Simona Gurzu
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 6.208

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.