Clinical and Translational Imaging

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 77–89 | Cite as

The role of PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with urothelial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Anna Rita Cervino
  • Lea Cuppari
  • Pasquale Reccia
  • Marta Burei
  • Giorgio Saladini
  • Laura Evangelista
Meta-analysis
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Genitourinary

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis is to define the role of PET/CT in the evaluation of patients with urothelial cancer (UC).

Methods

Searches of the major scientific literature databases were carried out to select English language articles dealing with PET and UC. Only original articles concerning UC patients who were (1) candidates for radical surgery, (2) restaged for suspicions of recurrences or metastasis and (3) evaluated after treatments were selected and included in the present study. Abstract, reviews, clinical cases and editor comments were excluded. Moreover, articles on the optimization of PET/CT study protocol, such as refilling, diuretic administration or similar, were excluded. Only studies that met the following criteria were included in the meta-analysis: sample size equal to/greater than 15 patients; index test: 18F-FDG PET/CT; standard of reference for the identification of disease; outcomes, such as true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative, which allowed us to construct 2 × 2 contingency tables.

Results

Thirty-three papers were collected and analyzed. The studies included a total of 1944 patients, of which 1661 patients were assessed at initial staging and 283 in the restaging phase. 18F-FDG was the most employed tracer for the evaluation of UC patients (29 out of 33 studies), while 11C-choline and 11C-acetate were employed alone or in concomitance in three and one articles, respectively. The pooled sensitivities and specificities of 18F-FDG PET/CT were 41.8% (95% CI 41.1–52.5), 91% (95% CI 88.2–93.3), 94% (95% CI 88.6–97.4) and 93% (95% CI 84.3–97.7), respectively, for lymph node involvement at the initial staging and in the restaging phase. Both in initial staging and in restaging, 18F-FDG PET/CT was more accurate than conventional imaging (i.e., CT and/or MRI).

Conclusions

18F-FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for the evaluation of patients with UCs, both in the staging and in the restaging setting. In this latter phase, 18F-FDG PET/CT has a high pooled diagnostic performance. A multicenter study should be drawn to demonstrate how PET/CT imaging is useful in the diagnostic pathway of patients with UCs.

Keywords

Urothelial cancer FDG PET/CT Bladder cancer Upper tract urinary cancer Meta-analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Christina Drace for the English language editing.

Authors' contributions

ARC and LC: literature search and review, and manuscript writing; PR: content planning; MB: manuscript writing; GS: content planning and manuscript editing; LE: meta-analysis, content planning and manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

None.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not necessary for the present study.

Supplementary material

40336_2018_269_MOESM1_ESM.png (6 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PNG 5 kb)
40336_2018_269_MOESM2_ESM.docx (53 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 52 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Romain M et al (2015) Upper urinary tract disease: what we know today and unmet needs. Transl Androl Urol 4:261–272Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith AK et al (2011) Inadequacy of biopsy for diagnosis of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: implication for conservative management. Urology 78:82–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scolieri MJ et al (2000) Limitation of computed tomography in the preoperative staging of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology 56:930–934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fritz GA et al (2006) Multiphasic multidetector-row CT (MDCT) in detection and staging of transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Eur Radiol 16:1244–1252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Secin FP et al (2007) Evaluation of regional lymph node dissection in patients with upper urinary tract. Urol 14:26–32Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Favaretto RL et al (2012) Combining imaging and ureteroscopy variables in a preoperative multivariable model for prediction of muscle-invasive and non-organ confined disease in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int 109:77–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vind-Kezunovic S, Bouchelouche K, Ipsen P, Høyer S, Bell C, Bjerggaard Jensen J (2017) Detection of lymph node metastasis in patients with bladder cancer using maximum standardised uptake value and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography: results from a high-volume centre including long-term follow-up. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.06.005
  8. 8.
    Apolo AB et al (2010) Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:3973–3978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soubra A, Hayward D, Dahm P, Goldfarb R, Froehlich J, Jha G, Konety B (2016) The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging bladder cancer: a single-institution study and a systematic review with meta-analysis. World J Urol 34:1229–1237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Association of Urology (EAU), http://uroweb.org/. Accessed Sept 2017
  11. 11.
    American Urological Association (AUA), http://www.auanet.org/. Accessed Sept 2017
  12. 12.
    Chang SS et al (2017) Treatment of non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer: AUA/ASCO/ASTRO/SUO guideline. J Urol 198:552–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    www.nccn.org. Accessed Sept 2017.
  14. 14.
    Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Comarasamy A (2006) Meta-Disc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li C, Yang W, Men YM, Wu F, Pan J, Li L (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of mandibular involvement from head and neck cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 9(11):e112267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whiting PF, Rutijes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM (2011) QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sadeghi R, Treglia G (2017) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic studies: a practical guideline. Clin Transl Imaging 5:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA (2009) Meta-analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol 9:80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maurer T, Souvatzoglou M, Kubler H, Opercan K, Schmidt S, Herrmann K, Stollfuss J, Weirich G, Haller B, Gschwend JE, Schwaiger M, Krause BJ, Treiber U (2012) Diagnostic efficacy of [11C] choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared with conventional computed tomography in lymph node staging of patients with bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 61(5):1031–1038CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schöder H, Ong SC, Reuter VE, Cai S, Burnazi E, Dalbagni G, Larson SM, Bochner BH (2012) Initial results with 11C-acetate positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in the staging of urinary bladder cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 14:245–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mertens LS, Fioole-Bruining A, Vegt E, Vogel WV, Van Rhijn BW, Horenblas S (2013) Impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) on management of patients with carcinoma invading bladder muscle. BJU Int 112:729–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rouanne M, Girma A, Neuzillet Y, Vilain D, Radulescu C, Letang N, Yonneau L, Herve J-M, Botto H, Le Stanc E, Lebret T (2014) Potential impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT on patients selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy before radical cystectomy. EJSO 40:1724–1730CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodfellow H, Viney Z, Hughes P, Rankin S, Rottenberg G, Hughes S, Evison F, Dasgupta P, O’Brien T, Shamim Khan M (2014) Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer. BJU Int 114:389–395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mertens LS, Mir MC, Scott MS, Ting Lee S, Fioole-Bruining A, Vegt E, Vogel WV, Manecksha R, Bolton D, Davis ID, Horenblas S, Van Rhijn BWG, Lawrentschuk N (2014) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucosee positron emission tomography/computed tomography aids staging and predicts mortality in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urology 83:398–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sassa N, Kato K, Abe S, Iwano S, Ito S, Ikeda M, Shimamoto K, Yamamoto S, Yamamoto T, Gotoh M, Naganawa S (2014) Evaluation of 11C-choline PET/CT for primary diagnosis and staging of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:2232–2241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kollberg P, Almquist H, Bläckberg M, Cronberg C, Garpered S, Gudjonsson S, Kleist J, Lyttkens K, Patschan O, Liedberg F (2015) [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose—positron emission tomography/computed tomography improves staging in patients with high-risk muscle-invasive bladder cancer scheduled for radical cystectomy. Scand J Urol 49:296–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aljabery F, Lindblom G, Skoog S, Shabo I, Olsson H, Rosell J, Jahnson S (2015) PET/CT versus conventional CT for detection of lymph node metastases in patients with locally advanced bladder cancer. BMC Urology 15:87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Asai S, Fukumoto T, Tanji N, Miura N, Miyagawa M, Nishimura K, Yanagihara Y, Shirato A, Miyauchi Y, Kikugawa T, Yokoyama M (2015) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosis of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 20:1042–1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tanaka H, Yoshida S, Komai Y, Sakai Y, Urakami S, Yuasa T, Yamamoto S, Masuda H, Koizumi M, Kohno A, Fukui I, Yonese J, Fujii Y, Kihara K (2016) Clinical value of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: impact on detection of metastases and patient management. Urol Int 96:65–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kassem TW (2016) Up and down staging of TCC using 18F-FDG PET/CT scan. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 47:1095–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Uttam M, Pravin N, Anish B, Nandita K, Arup M (2016) Is [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose FDG-PET/CT better than ct alone for the preoperative lymph node staging of muscle invasive bladder cancer? Int Braz J Urol 42:234–241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pichler R, De Zordo T, Fritz J, Kroiss A, Aigner F, Heidegger I, Virgolini I, Horninger W, Uprimny C (2017) Pelvic lymph node staging by combined 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging in bladder cancer prior to radical cystectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chaudhry MA, Wahl R, Al-Rubaiey Kadhim L, Zaheer A (2013) Contrast enhanced computed tomography characterization of fluorodeoxyglucose-avid regional and non-regional lymph nodes in patients with suspicion of metastatic bladder cancer. J Clin Imaging Sci 3:66CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li Y, Yang ZQ, Ye H, Qi L, Hu JW (2013) Application of 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging in diagnosing bladder tumor metastasis lesions. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci. 33:234–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giannatempo P, Alessi A, Miceli R, Raggi D, Farè E, Nicolai N, Serafini G, Padovano B, Piva L, Biasoni D, Torelli T, Catanzaro M, Stagni S, Maffezzini M, Mariani L, Gianni AM, Sonpavde G, Salvioni R, Necchi A, Crippa F (2014) Interim fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for early metabolic assessment of therapeutic response to chemotherapy for metastatic transitional cell carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer 12:433–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Öztürk H, Karapolat I (2015) Efficacy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in restaging muscle-invasive bladder cancer following radical cystectomy. Exp Ther Med 9:717–724CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Öztürk H (2015) Detecting metastatic bladder cancer using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer Res Treat 47:834–843CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Öztürk H (2016) Comparing RECIST with EORTC criteria in metastatic bladder cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 142:187–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kitajima K, Yamamoto S, Fukushima K, Yamakado K, Katsuura T, Igarashi Y, Kawanaka Y, Mouri M, Hirota S (2016) FDG-PET/CT as a post-treatment restaging tool in urothelial carcinoma: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT. Eur J Radiol 85:593–598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Alongi P, Caobelli F, Gentile R, Stefano A, Russo G, Albano D, Baldari S, Gilardi MC, Midiri M (2017) Recurrent bladder carcinoma: clinical and prognostic role of 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:224–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Swinnen G, Maes A, Pottel H, Vanneste A, Billiet I, Lesage K, Werbrouck P (2010) FDG-PET/CT for the preoperative lymph node staging of invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol 57:641–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD, Klim AP, Grubb RL, Humphrey PA, Siegel C, Cao D, Gao F, Siegel BA (2009) Prospective study of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 27(26):4314–4320CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lodde M, Lacombe L, Friede J, Morin F, Saourine A, Fradet Y (2010) Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography with computed tomography for staging of urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int 106(5):658–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jensen TK, Holt P, Gerke O, Riehmann M, Svolgaard B, Marcussen N, Bouchelouche K (2011) 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 45(2):122–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hitier-Berthault M, Ansquer C, Branchereau J, Renaudin K, Bodere F, Bouchot O, Rigaud J (2013) 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a prospective study. Int J Urol 20:788–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Orevi M, Klein M, Mishani E, Chisin R, Freedman N, Gofrit ON (2012) 11C-acetate PET/CT in bladder urothelial carcinoma: intraindividual comparison with 11C-Choline. Clin Nucl Med 37(4):e67–e72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jeong IG, Hong S, You D, Hong JH, Ahn H, Kim CS (2015) FDG PET-CT for lymph node staging of bladder cancer: a prospective study of patients with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3150–3156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Jadvar H, Quan V, Henderson RW, Conti PS (2008) [F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and PET-CT in diagnostic imaging evaluation of locally recurrent and metastatic bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol 13(1):42–47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    van de Putte EEF, Vegt E, Mertens LS, Bruining A, Hendricksen K, van der Heijden MS, Horenblas S, van Rhijn BWG (2017) FDG-PET/CT for response evaluation of invasive bladder cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int Urol Nephrol 49(9):1585–1591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Treglia G, Sadeghi R, Viccaro A, Muoio B, Giovanella L (2017) Clinical role and accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in evaluating disease activity in patients with chronic inflammatory bowel disease: an updated systematic review and a bivariate meta-analysis. Clin Transl Imaging 5:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging UnitVeneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCSPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations