| Literature DB >> 35885569 |
Barbara Muoio1,2, Domenico Albano3, Francesco Dondi3, Francesco Bertagna3, Valentina Garibotto4, Jolanta Kunikowska5, Arnoldo Piccardo6, Salvatore Annunziata7, Vittoria Espeli1, Denis Migliorini2, Giorgio Treglia8,9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies proposed the use of positron emission tomography (PET) with Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-targeting radiopharmaceuticals in brain tumors. Our aim is to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of these methods in high-grade gliomas (HGG) with a bivariate meta-analysis.Entities:
Keywords: PET; PSMA; brain tumors; glioblastoma; glioma; meta-analysis; neuro-oncology; nuclear medicine; positron emission tomography
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885569 PMCID: PMC9323081 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071665
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Summary of study selection process for the systematic review and meta-analysis.
General study information.
| Authors [Ref.] | Year | Country | Study Design/Number of Centers Involved | Funding Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akgun et al. [ | 2020 | Turkey | Prospective/bicentric | None declared |
| Kumar et al. [ | 2022 | India | Prospective/monocentric | None declared |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | 2022 | Poland | Not reported/monocentric | None declared |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | 2020 | Poland | Not reported/monocentric | None declared |
| Liu et al. [ | 2021 | China | Retrospective/monocentric | Natural Science Foundation of China |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | 2018 | India | Prospective/bicentric | None declared |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | 2017 | India | Not reported/monocentric | None declared |
| Verma et al. [ | 2019 | India | Not reported/monocentric | None declared |
Patient key characteristics and clinical setting.
| Authors [Ref.] | Sample Size (Gliomas) | Mean/Median Age | Male % | Type of Glioma (Grade II/III/IV) | Clinical Setting | Prior Imaging |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akgun et al. [ | 35 | mean: 59.5 | 49% | 14/6/15 | HGG vs. LGG | MRI |
| Kumar et al. [ | 33 | median: 37 | 67% | 0/12/21 | suspicious recurrence of HGG | MRI |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | 34 | mean: 44.5 | 65% | 0/6/28 | suspicious recurrence of HGG | MRI |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | 15 | mean: 44 | 67% | 0/0/15 | suspicious recurrence of HGG | MRI |
| Liu et al. [ | 30 | mean: 50 | 43% | 14/4/12 | HGG vs. LGG | MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | 15 | median: 50 | 80% | 1/3/11 | initial diagnosis or suspicious recurrence of HGG | MRI |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | 6 | mean: 40 | 60% | 0/0/6 | initial diagnosis or suspicious recurrence of HGG | MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT |
| Verma et al. [ | 10 | mean: 52 | 80% | 3/0/7 | HGG vs. LGG | MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT |
Legend: HGG = high grade gliomas (grade III and IV); LGG = low grade gliomas (grade II); MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; [18F]FDG PET/CT: fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography.
Index test key characteristics.
| Authors [Ref.] | Tracer | Hybrid Imaging | Tomograph | Injected Activity | Time from Injection to Acquisition (Minutes) | Image Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akgun et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 | PET/MRI | SIGNA (GE) | 150.6 ± 31.8 MBq | 57.5 ± 3.53 | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, SUVpeak, SUVmean) |
| Kumar et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 | PET/CT + fusion with MRI | Biograph mCT (Siemens) | 148–185 MBq | 60 | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR, TV) |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 | PET/CT + fusion with MRI | Biograph 64 TruePoint (Siemens) | 2 MBq/kg | 60 | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR, TLR, TV) |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 | PET/CT + fusion with MRI | Biograph 64 TruePoint (Siemens) | 2 MBq/kg | 60 | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR, TLR, TV) |
| Liu et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-617 | PET/CT + correlation with MRI | Biograph 40 (Siemens) | 1.8–2.2 MBq/kg | 60 | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, SUVmean, TBR) |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 | PET/CT | Biograph 6 TruePoint (Siemens) or Gemini GLX (Philips) | NR | 45–60 | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, TBR) |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 | PET/CT | Biograph 6 TruePoint (Siemens) | 100 ± 19 MBq | 60 | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax, TBR) |
| Verma et al. [ | [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 | PET/CT | Gemini TOF (Philips) | NR | NR | visual and semi-quantitative (SUVmax and TBR) |
Legend: CT = computed tomography; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NR = not reported; PET = positron emission tomography; PSMA = prostate specific membrane antigen; SUV = standardized uptake value; TBR = tumor-to-background ratio; TLR = target-to-liver ratio; TV = tumor volume.
Figure 2Summary of quality assessment according to QUADAS-2 tool. Studies included in the systematic review are classified as low-risk or high-risk of bias or applicability concerns for different domains (reported in the vertical axis). The horizontal axis indicates the percentage of studies. The graph indicates that for the reference standard more than half of the studies show potential high risk of bias.
Diagnostic accuracy data of the index test in high-grade gliomas on a patient-based analysis.
| Authors [Ref.] | Reference Standard | TP | FP | TN | FN | Sen | Spe | PPV | NPV | Acc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akgun et al. [ | Histology | 18 | 2 | 12 | 3 | 85.7% | 85.7% | 90% | 80% | 85.7% |
| Kumar et al. [ | Histology or clinical/imaging FU | 30 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | Histology or clinical/imaging FU | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | NC | 100% | NC | 100% |
| Kunikowska et al. [ | Histology or clinical/imaging FU | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100% | NC | 100% | NC | 100% |
| Liu et al. [ | Histology | 14 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 87.5% | 100% | 100% | 87.5% | 93.3% |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | Histology or clinical/imaging FU | 12 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 100% | 66.7% | 92.3% | 100% | 93.3% |
| Sasikumar et al. [ | Histology or clinical/imaging FU | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Verma et al. [ | Histology | 7 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Legend: Acc = diagnostic accuracy; FN = false negative; FP = false positive; FU = follow-up; NPV = negative predictive value; PPV = positive predictive value; Sen = sensitivity; Spe = specificity; TN = true negative; TP = true positive; * = study included in the systematic review but excluded from the meta-analysis for possible patient data overlap with another study of the same research group.
Figure 3Summary ROC curve of diagnostic accuracy of the index test in high-grade glioma.
Figure 4Positive likelihood ratio of the index test in high-grade glioma. Legend: 95% C.I. = 95% confidence interval; TP = true positive; TN = true negative; FP = false positive; FN = false negative.
Figure 5Negative likelihood ratio of the index test in high-grade glioma. Legend: 95% C.I. = 95% confidence interval; TP = true positive; TN = true negative; FP = false positive; FN = false negative.
Figure 6Diagnostic Odds ratio of the index test in high-grade glioma. Legend: 95% C.I. = 95% confidence interval; TP = true positive; TN = true negative; FP = false positive; FN = false negative.