Journal Article
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

[ 18 F]FDG PET/CT versus [ 18 F]FDG PET/MRI in the evaluation of liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer: A head-to-head comparative meta-analysis.

Clinical Imaging 2024 May 32
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of [18 F]FDG PET/CT with that of [18 F]FDG PET/MRI in terms of identifying liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer.

METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched, and studies evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of [18 F]FDG PET/CT and [18 F]FDG PET/MRI in patients with liver metastasis of primary cancer were included. We used a random effects model to analyze their sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on race, image analysis, study design, and analysis methodologies were conducted. Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity.

RESULTS: Seven articles with 343 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity of [18 F]FDG PET/CT was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.63-0.96), and that of [18 F]FDG PET/MRI was 0.91 (95 % CI: 0.82-0.98); there was no significant difference between the two methods (P = 0.32). Similarly, both methods showed equal specificity: 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95-1.00) for [18 F]FDG PET/CT and 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.96-1.00) for [18 F]FDG PET/MRI, and thus, there was no significant difference between the methods (P = 0.41). Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no differences. Meta-regression analysis revealed that race was a potential source of heterogeneity for [18 F]FDG PET/CT (P = 0.01), while image analysis and contrast agent were found to be potential sources of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS: [18 F]FDG PET/MRI has similar sensitivity and specificity to [18 F]FDG PET/CT for detecting liver metastasis of primary cancer in both the general population and in subgroups. [18 F]FDG PET/CT may be a more cost-effective option. However, the conclusions of this meta-analysis are tentative due to the limited number of studies included, and further research is necessary for validation.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

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 Toggle icon

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