Tumor Biology

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 3209–3214 | Cite as

Diagnostic value of [18F] FDG-PET and PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a meta-analysis

  • Huojun Zhang
  • Wei Xing
  • Qinqin Kang
  • Chao Chen
  • Linhui Wang
  • Jianping Lu
Research Article


An early diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer is crucial for early treatment and management. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy of 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer with meta-analysis. The PubMed and CNKI databases were searched for the eligible studies published up to June 01, 2014. The sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy of 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer were pooled along with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Ten studies met our inclusion criteria. The summary estimates for 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer in meta-analysis were as follows: a pooled sensitivity, 0.82 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.88); a pooled specificity, 0.92 (95 % CI, 0.87 to 0.95); positive likelihood ratio, 6.80 (95 % CI, 4.31 to 10.74); negative likelihood ratio, 0.27 (95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.36); and diagnostic odds ratio, 25.18 (95 % CI, 17.58 to 70.4). The results indicate that 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT are relatively high sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer.


Urinary bladder cancer FDG-PET PET/CT Sensitivity Specificity Meta-analysis 



This work was supported by Grant No. CH125520300, CH125520800 from “1255” Foundation of Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufman DS, Shipley WU, Feldman AS. Bladder cancer. Lancet. 2009;374:239–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paik ML, Scolieri MJ, Brown SL, Spirnak JP, Resnick MI. Limitations of computerized tomography in staging invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1693–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Voges GE, Tauschke E, Stöckle M, Alken P, Hohenfellner R. Computerized tomography: an unreliable method for accurate staging of bladder tumors in patients who are candidates for radical cystectomy. J Urol. 1989;142(4):972–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen K, Chen X. Positron emission tomography imaging of cancer biology: current status and future prospects. Semin Oncol. 2011;38:70–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiti A, Picchio M. The rising PET: the increasing use of choline PET/CT in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:53–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mertens K, Slaets D, Lambert B, Acou M, De Vos F, Goethals I. PET with (18)F-labelled choline-based tracers for tumour imaging: a review of the literature. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2188–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, et al. 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. 2004;22(21):4357–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(8):1200–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET andPET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(11):1797–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy: towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy; the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Balk EM, et al. Diagnosing acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review of the accuracy and clinical effect of current technologies. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37:453–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:675–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suzuki S, Moro-oka T, Choudhry NK. The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:461–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Westwood ME, Whiting PF, Kleijnen J. How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;8:20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drieskens O, Oyen R, Van Poppel H, Vankan Y, Flamen P, Mortelmans L. FDG-PET for preoperative staging of bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(12):1412–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anjos DA, Etchebehere EC, Ramos CD, Santos AO, Albertotti C. Camargo EE.18F-FDG PET/CT delayed images after diuretic for restaging invasive bladder cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(5):764–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jadvar H, Quan V, Henderson RW, Conti PS. [F-18]-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET and PET-CT in diagnostic imaging evaluation of locally recurrent and metastatic bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13(1):42–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD, Klim AP, Grubb RL, Humphrey PA, et al. Prospective study of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4314–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harkirat S, Anand S, Jacob M. Forced diuresis and dual-phase F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT scan for restaging of urinary bladder cancers. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2010;20(1):13–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Apolo AB, Riches J, Schöder H, Akin O, Trout A, Milowsky MI, et al. Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):3973–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jensen TK, Holt P, Gerke O, Riehmann M, Svolgaard B, Marcussen N, et al. Preoperative lymph-node staging of invasive urothelial bladder cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed axial tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with histopathology. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011;45(2):122–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yang Z, Cheng J, Pan L, Hu S, Xu J, Zhang Y, et al. Is whole-body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT plus additional pelvic images (oral hydration-voiding-refilling) useful for detecting recurrent bladder cancer? Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26(7):571–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goodfellow H, Viney Z, Hughes P, Rankin S, Rottenberg G, Hughes S, et al. Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2013. doi: 10.1111/bju.12608.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nayak B, Dogra PN, Naswa N, Kumar R. Diuretic 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection and locoregional staging of urinary bladder cancer: prospective evaluation of a novel technique. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(3):386–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hoffman JM, Gambhir SS. Molecular imaging: the vision and opportunity for radiology in the future. Radiology. 2007;244:39–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Czernin J, Weber WA, Herschman HR. Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics. Annu Rev Med. 2006;57:99–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schöder H, Larson SM. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34:274–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swinnen G, Maes A, Pottel H, Vanneste A, Billiet I, Lesage K, et al. FDG-PET/CT for the preoperative lymph node staging of invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:641–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lu YY, Chen JH, Liang JA, Wang HY, Lin CC, Lin WY, et al. Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:2411–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat Soc A. 1988;151:419–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyChanghai Hospital, Second Military Medical UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyChanghai Hospital, Second Military Medical UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyAffiliated Third Hospital of Suzhou UniversityChangzhouChina
  4. 4.Department of UrologyChanghai Hospital, Second Military Medical UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations