Comparison of PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis: a meta-analysis
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.
KeywordsPET 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.
- 2.Wang Z, Chen JQ (2011). Imaging in assessing hepatic and peritoneal metastases of gastric cancer: a systematic review (provisional abstract). BMC GastroenterolGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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. http://srdta.cochrane.org/en/authors.html
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
- 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
- 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.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