We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate recurrent gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2012 March
BACKGROUND AND AIM: We aimed to explore the role of the diagnostic accuracy of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18) F-FDG PET) in detecting recurrent gastric cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancerlit, and Cochrane Library database, from January 2001 to July 2011, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of (18) F-FDG PET in detecting recurrent gastric cancer. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves. We also compared the performance of (18) F-FDG PET with computed tomography (CT) by analyzing studies that had also used these diagnostic methods on the same patients.
RESULTS: Across nine studies (526 patients), the overall sensitivity of (18) F-FDG PET was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.86), and the overall specificity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.87). Overall, LR+ was 3.52 (95% CI: 2.68-4.63) and LR- was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22-0.46). In studies in which both (18) F-FDG PET and other diagnostic tests were performed, the sensitivity and specificity of (18) F-FDG PET were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.90), respectively; of contrast CT, they were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.64-0.83) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78-0.90), respectively; and of combined PET and CT, they were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.90), respectively. Study sensitivity was not correlated with the prevalence of recurrent gastric cancer.
CONCLUSION: (18) F-FDG PET has good diagnostic performance in the overall evaluation of recurrent gastric cancer, but still has some limited performance compared with contrast CT. (18) F-FDG PET combined with CT might improve the diagnostic performance in detecting recurrent gastric cancer.
METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cancerlit, and Cochrane Library database, from January 2001 to July 2011, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of (18) F-FDG PET in detecting recurrent gastric cancer. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves. We also compared the performance of (18) F-FDG PET with computed tomography (CT) by analyzing studies that had also used these diagnostic methods on the same patients.
RESULTS: Across nine studies (526 patients), the overall sensitivity of (18) F-FDG PET was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.86), and the overall specificity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.87). Overall, LR+ was 3.52 (95% CI: 2.68-4.63) and LR- was 0.32 (95% CI: 0.22-0.46). In studies in which both (18) F-FDG PET and other diagnostic tests were performed, the sensitivity and specificity of (18) F-FDG PET were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.62-0.80) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.90), respectively; of contrast CT, they were 0.74 (95% CI: 0.64-0.83) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78-0.90), respectively; and of combined PET and CT, they were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.79-0.90), respectively. Study sensitivity was not correlated with the prevalence of recurrent gastric cancer.
CONCLUSION: (18) F-FDG PET has good diagnostic performance in the overall evaluation of recurrent gastric cancer, but still has some limited performance compared with contrast CT. (18) F-FDG PET combined with CT might improve the diagnostic performance in detecting recurrent gastric cancer.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app