Yige Shi , Hanxiang Yu , Xiaoyang Zhang , Xing Xu , Hongfang Tuo
{"title":"[18F]FDG正电子发射计算机断层显像/计算机断层扫描（PET/CT）与[18F]FDG正电子发射计算机断层显像/计算机断层扫描（PET/MRI）在原发性癌症患者肝转移评估中的比较：头对头比较荟萃分析","authors":"Yige Shi , Hanxiang Yu , Xiaoyang Zhang , Xing Xu , Hongfang Tuo","doi":"10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT with that of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI in terms of identifying liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched, and studies evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT and [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI in patients with liver metastasis of primary cancer were included. We used a random effects model to analyze their sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on race, image analysis, study design, and analysis methodologies were conducted. Cochrane Q and I<sup>2</sup> statistics were used to assess intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seven articles with 343 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.63–0.96), and that of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI was 0.91 (95 % CI: 0.82–0.98); there was no significant difference between the two methods (<em>P</em> = 0.32). Similarly, both methods showed equal specificity: 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95–1.00) for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT and 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.96–1.00) for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI, and thus, there was no significant difference between the methods (<em>P</em> = 0.41). Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no differences. Meta-regression analysis revealed that race was a potential source of heterogeneity for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT (<em>P</em> = 0.01), while image analysis and contrast agent were found to be potential sources of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (<em>P</em> = 0.02).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI has similar sensitivity and specificity to [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT for detecting liver metastasis of primary cancer in both the general population and in subgroups. [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT may be a more cost-effective option. However, the conclusions of this meta-analysis are tentative due to the limited number of studies included, and further research is necessary for validation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50680,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[18F]FDG PET/CT versus [18F]FDG PET/MRI in the evaluation of liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer: A head-to-head comparative meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Yige Shi , Hanxiang Yu , Xiaoyang Zhang , Xing Xu , Hongfang Tuo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110209\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT with that of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI in terms of identifying liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched, and studies evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT and [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI in patients with liver metastasis of primary cancer were included. We used a random effects model to analyze their sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on race, image analysis, study design, and analysis methodologies were conducted. Cochrane Q and I<sup>2</sup> statistics were used to assess intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seven articles with 343 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.63–0.96), and that of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI was 0.91 (95 % CI: 0.82–0.98); there was no significant difference between the two methods (<em>P</em> = 0.32). Similarly, both methods showed equal specificity: 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95–1.00) for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT and 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.96–1.00) for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI, and thus, there was no significant difference between the methods (<em>P</em> = 0.41). Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no differences. Meta-regression analysis revealed that race was a potential source of heterogeneity for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT (<em>P</em> = 0.01), while image analysis and contrast agent were found to be potential sources of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (<em>P</em> = 0.02).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI has similar sensitivity and specificity to [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT for detecting liver metastasis of primary cancer in both the general population and in subgroups. [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT may be a more cost-effective option. However, the conclusions of this meta-analysis are tentative due to the limited number of studies included, and further research is necessary for validation.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707124001396\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899707124001396","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
[18F]FDG PET/CT versus [18F]FDG PET/MRI in the evaluation of liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer: A head-to-head comparative meta-analysis
Purpose
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of [18F]FDG PET/CT with that of [18F]FDG PET/MRI in terms of identifying liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched, and studies evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of [18F]FDG PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/MRI in patients with liver metastasis of primary cancer were included. We used a random effects model to analyze their sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on race, image analysis, study design, and analysis methodologies were conducted. Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity.
Results
Seven articles with 343 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity of [18F]FDG PET/CT was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.63–0.96), and that of [18F]FDG PET/MRI was 0.91 (95 % CI: 0.82–0.98); there was no significant difference between the two methods (P = 0.32). Similarly, both methods showed equal specificity: 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95–1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/CT and 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.96–1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI, and thus, there was no significant difference between the methods (P = 0.41). Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no differences. Meta-regression analysis revealed that race was a potential source of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/CT (P = 0.01), while image analysis and contrast agent were found to be potential sources of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (P = 0.02).
Conclusions
[18F]FDG PET/MRI has similar sensitivity and specificity to [18F]FDG PET/CT for detecting liver metastasis of primary cancer in both the general population and in subgroups. [18F]FDG PET/CT may be a more cost-effective option. However, the conclusions of this meta-analysis are tentative due to the limited number of studies included, and further research is necessary for validation.
期刊介绍：
The mission of Clinical Imaging is to publish, in a timely manner, the very best radiology research from the United States and around the world with special attention to the impact of medical imaging on patient care. The journal''s publications cover all imaging modalities, radiology issues related to patients, policy and practice improvements, and clinically-oriented imaging physics and informatics. The journal is a valuable resource for practicing radiologists, radiologists-in-training and other clinicians with an interest in imaging. Papers are carefully peer-reviewed and selected by our experienced subject editors who are leading experts spanning the range of imaging sub-specialties, which include:
-Body Imaging-
Breast Imaging-
Cardiothoracic Imaging-
Imaging Physics and Informatics-
Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine-
Musculoskeletal and Emergency Imaging-
Neuroradiology-
Practice, Policy & Education-
Pediatric Imaging-
Vascular and Interventional Radiology
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
