Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp 2660–2666 | Cite as

Comparison of PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis: a meta-analysis

  • Jinkui Li
  • Ruifeng Yan
  • Junqiang LeiEmail author
  • Changqin Jiang
Review Article



The study aims to perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic value of FDG PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) to identify the potentially most useful diagnostic modality.


A computer-aided search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the China Biological Medicine Database, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and Wanfang databases for articles concerning diagnosis of peritoneal metastases with PET or PET/CT. QUADAS was used to evaluate the included articles’ quality.


On a per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity of PET/CT (84%) was significantly higher than that of PET (60%), and the pooled specificity of PET (98%) was markedly higher than that for PET/CT (94%). On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 87 and 95%, respectively. Only 1 PET study on a per-lesion basis, its sensitivity is 65.8 and specificity is 94.1%.


PET and PET/CT are powerful imaging techniques for detection and characterization of PC. PET/CT can be used as a screening tool and it may be acceptable to use PET as a diagnosis tool.


PET Positron emission tomography PET/CT Peritoneal carcinomatosis Meta-analysis 



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Junqiang Lei. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Only if the study is on human subjects: Written informed consent was not required for this study because the study is a secondary research evidence. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in XXX. Methodology: diagnostic study.


  1. 1.
    De Bree E, Witkamp AJ, Zoetmulder FA (2002) Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 79(1):46–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang Z, Chen JQ (2011). Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer: a systematic review (provisional abstract). BMC GastroenterolGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Funicelli L, Travaini LL, Landoni F, et al. (2010) Peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer: the role of CT and F-18 FDG-PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 35(6):701–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dromain C, Leboulleux S, Auperin A, et al. (2008) Staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis: enhanced CT vs PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 33(1):87–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW (2007) PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 42(2):360–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, et al. (2004) Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 22(21):4357–4368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Townsend DW, Beyer T (2002) A combined PET/CT scanner: the path to true image fusion. Br J Radiol 75:24–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soussan M, Cabral FC, Des Gyetz G, et al. (2012) Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and MR with diffusion-weighted imaging for assessing peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal malignancy. Eur Radiol 22(7):1479–1487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu X, Lee EYP, Lai V, et al. (2013) Correlation between tissue metabolism and cellularity assessed by standardized uptake value and apparent diffusion coefficient in peritoneal metastasis. J Magn Reson Imaging 00:1–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dirisamer A, Svhims W, Heinisch M, et al. (2009) Detection of histologically proven peritoneal carcinomatosis with fused 18F-FDG-PET/MDCT. Eur J Radiol 69(3):536–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim HW, Won KS, Zeon SK, et al. (2013) Peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with ovarian cancer enhanced CT versus F-18-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 38(2):93–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, et al. (2003) Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of F-18-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 44(9):1407–1412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubini G, Altini C, Notaristefano A, et al. (2013) Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis in the restaging of patient with ovarian cancer as compared to contrast enhanced CT and tumor marker Ca-125. Revista Espanola de Medicina Nuclear eImagen Molecular 516:1–6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berthelot C, Morel O, Girault S, et al. (2011) Use of FDG-PET/CT for peritoneal carcinomatosis before hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Nucl Med Commun 32(1):23–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suzuki A, Kawano T, Takahashi N, et al. (2004) Value of 18F-FDG PET in the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis, in. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:1413–1420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klumpp BD, Schwenzer N, Aschoff P, et al. (2013) Preoperative assessment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: intraindividual comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI. Abdom Imaging 38(1):64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Won K, Kim H, Zeon S, et al. (2009) Peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with ovarian cancer: role of F-18-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:243Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nynke S, Jonathan D, Theresa M (2008) Guide to the contents of a cochrane review and protocol for diagnostic test accuracy version 1.0.1(updated February 2008) The Cochrane Collaboration.
  19. 19.
    Tian JH (2007) Systematic review of diagnosis text accuracy. In: Yang KH (ed) System evaluation guideline. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2010:191–195, 48(12):1945–1950.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, et al. (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arends LR, Hamza TH, Van Houwelingen JC, et al. (2008) Bivariate random effects meta-analysis of ROC curves. Med Decis Making 28(5):621–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig I (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim DW, Park SA, Kim CG (2011) Detecting the recurrence of gastric cancer after curative resection: comparison of FDG PET/CT and contrast-enhanced abdominal CT. J Korean Med Sci 26(7):875–880PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang M, Jiang XF, Zhang M, et al. (2009) The role of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of ascites of undetermined origin. J Nucl Med 50(4):506–512CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang MQ, Bandou E, Kawamura T et al (2007) Clinical value of PET-CT in diagnosing peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ (Med Sci) 27(5):573–576Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Filippi L, D’Arienzo M, Scoponaro F, et al. (2013) Usefulness of dual-time point imaging after carbonated water for the fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis in colon cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 28(1):29–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen J, Cheong JH, Yun MJ, et al. (2005) Improvement in preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma with positron emission tomography. Cancer 103(11):2383–2390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Satoh Y, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U, et al. (2011) Diagnosis of peritoneal dissemination: comparison of F-18-FDG PET/CT, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced MDCT. Am J Roentgenol 196(2):447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lim JS, Kim MJ, Yun MJ, et al. (2006) Comparison of CT and 18F-FDG PET for detecting peritoneal metastasis on the preoperative evaluation for gastric carcinoma. Korean J Radiol 7:249–256PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang XY, Zhang XS, Chen ZF, et al. (2010) The clinical role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosis of the peritoneal carcinomatosis. Chin J Nucl Med 30(2):98–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wu JW, Ai SY, Zhu H, et al. (2007) The role of F-FDG PET/CT in detecting the peritoneal carcinomatosis. Chinese Clin Oncol 12(11):852–855Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ma L, Yang GF, Fu Z, et al. (2009) Vahe of F-FDG PET/CT in detecting recurrence and metastasis in gastric carcinoma. Chin J Nucl Med 29(3):167–170Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Drieskensa O, Stroobantsa S, Gysena M, et al. (2003) Positron emission tomography with FDG in the detection of peritoneal and retroperitoneal metastases of ovarian cancer. Gynecol Obstet Invest 55:130–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, ver. 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; Updated March 2011. Available at:
  35. 35.
    Wang YC, Liu XS, Xu JR (2010) CT, PET and PET/CT in diagnosing of peritoneal metastases: meta analysis. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 26(1):99–103Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim SK, Kang KW, Lee JS, et al. (2006) Assessment of lymph node metastases using 18F-FDG PET in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33(2):148–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anthony MP, Khong PL, Zhang J (2009) Spectrum of (18)F-FDG PET/CT appearances in peritoneal disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(6):523–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karaosmanoglu A, Blake M, Scott J (2011) PET and PET/CT imaging findings of peritoneal and omental involvement of patients with lymphoma. Am J Roentgenol 196(5):A149Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chang MC, Chen JH, Liang JA, et al. (2013) PET or PET/CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis: a meta-analysis (provisional abstract). Database Abstr Rev Eff 38(4):623–629Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu T, Cheng T, Xu W, et al. (2011) A meta-analysis of 18FDG-PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Skeletal Radiol 40(5):523–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinkui Li
    • 1
  • Ruifeng Yan
    • 1
  • Junqiang Lei
    • 2
    Email author
  • Changqin Jiang
    • 1
  1. 1.The First Clinical Medical School of Lanzhou UniversityLanzhouChina
  2. 2.The First Hospital of Lanzhou UnivesityLanzhouChina

Personalised recommendations