Comparison of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis
Objectives/Hypothesis: We aimed to compare the accuracy of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET‐computed tomography (CT) and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer. Study Design: Meta‐Analysis. Methods: We performed a meta‐...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Laryngoscope 2012-09, Vol.122 (9), p.1974-1978 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1978 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1974 |
| container_title | The Laryngoscope |
| container_volume | 122 |
| creator | Xu, Guozeng Li, Junkai Zuo, Xiaoyan Li, Chunyan |
| description | Objectives/Hypothesis:
We aimed to compare the accuracy of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET‐computed tomography (CT) and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.
Study Design:
Meta‐Analysis.
Methods:
We performed a meta‐analysis of all available studies. We compared the performance of whole body PET/PET‐CT with that of conventional anatomic imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional anatomic imaging on the same patients.
Results:
Across eight studies (1,147 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET/PET‐CT were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.88) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94–0.97), respectively, and for conventional anatomic imaging were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29–0.61) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88–0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that PET/PET‐CT had higher sensitivity than conventional anatomic imaging for nasopharyngeal cancer (0.82 vs. 0.30) and non‐nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer (0.85 vs. 0.62).
Conclusions:
Compared with conventional anatomic imaging, whole body PET/PET‐CT has excellent diagnostic performance for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/lary.23409 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1036876041</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1036876041</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3979-8f8d9b9eca111195d5e3bf59f4e64bd5d1d04f12de62afd3eb62ce3b77700e913</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhSMEokNhwwMgb5AKUlo7zs-4u1FUWtAIEBoorCzHvpkxTexgexjylLwSTmdaWOGF_-53zpXuSZLnBJ8SjLOzTrjxNKM5Zg-SGSkoSXPGiofJLBZpOi-yr0fJE--_Y0wqWuDHyVGWVQXFuJolv2vbD8Jpbw2yLdptbAeosWpEg_U6uPgNvfZex0uwvV07MWxGdPLxYvXqLG6pjPptAPVvVRiFpDU_wYSoE138ELGsJdK9WGuzRq11SEEAGaaX0j4IE1AvOr02wkgNHmmDBhF09PBop8MGbUCoW2sD8gbJiIE7RwvUQxBp7NCNXvunyaNWdB6eHc7j5PObi1V9lS4_XL6tF8tUUlaxdN7OFWsYSEHiYoUqgDZtwdocyrxRhSIK5y3JFJSZaBWFpsxkRKqqwhgYocfJyd53cPbHFnzgcUoSuk4YsFvPCablvCpxPqGv96h01nsHLR9cnIMbI8SnAPkUIL8NMMIvDr7bpgd1j94lFoGXB0B4KbrWTePyf7mS5qQk88iRPbfTHYz_acmXi0_f7pqne03MA37da4S74WVFq4Jfv7_k-GpVX7N3Nf9C_wCspMfY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1036876041</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Xu, Guozeng ; Li, Junkai ; Zuo, Xiaoyan ; Li, Chunyan</creator><creatorcontrib>Xu, Guozeng ; Li, Junkai ; Zuo, Xiaoyan ; Li, Chunyan</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives/Hypothesis:
We aimed to compare the accuracy of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET‐computed tomography (CT) and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.
Study Design:
Meta‐Analysis.
Methods:
We performed a meta‐analysis of all available studies. We compared the performance of whole body PET/PET‐CT with that of conventional anatomic imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional anatomic imaging on the same patients.
Results:
Across eight studies (1,147 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET/PET‐CT were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.88) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94–0.97), respectively, and for conventional anatomic imaging were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29–0.61) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88–0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that PET/PET‐CT had higher sensitivity than conventional anatomic imaging for nasopharyngeal cancer (0.82 vs. 0.30) and non‐nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer (0.85 vs. 0.62).
Conclusions:
Compared with conventional anatomic imaging, whole body PET/PET‐CT has excellent diagnostic performance for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-852X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lary.23409</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22753007</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LARYA8</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Diagnostic Imaging - methods ; distant malignancies ; Female ; Head and neck neoplasms ; Head and Neck Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Head and Neck Neoplasms - pathology ; Humans ; Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging ; Lymph Nodes - pathology ; Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; Medical sciences ; meta-analysis ; Multimodal Imaging - methods ; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology ; Neoplasm Invasiveness - pathology ; Neoplasm Staging ; Otorhinolaryngology (head neck, general aspects and miscellaneous) ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Positron-Emission Tomography - methods ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed ; Tumors ; Whole Body Imaging - methods ; whole body positron emission tomography</subject><ispartof>The Laryngoscope, 2012-09, Vol.122 (9), p.1974-1978</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3979-8f8d9b9eca111195d5e3bf59f4e64bd5d1d04f12de62afd3eb62ce3b77700e913</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3979-8f8d9b9eca111195d5e3bf59f4e64bd5d1d04f12de62afd3eb62ce3b77700e913</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Flary.23409$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Flary.23409$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27926,27927,45576,45577</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=26341618$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22753007$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xu, Guozeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Junkai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuo, Xiaoyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Chunyan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis</title><title>The Laryngoscope</title><addtitle>The Laryngoscope</addtitle><description>Objectives/Hypothesis:
We aimed to compare the accuracy of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET‐computed tomography (CT) and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.
Study Design:
Meta‐Analysis.
Methods:
We performed a meta‐analysis of all available studies. We compared the performance of whole body PET/PET‐CT with that of conventional anatomic imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional anatomic imaging on the same patients.
Results:
Across eight studies (1,147 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET/PET‐CT were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.88) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94–0.97), respectively, and for conventional anatomic imaging were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29–0.61) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88–0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that PET/PET‐CT had higher sensitivity than conventional anatomic imaging for nasopharyngeal cancer (0.82 vs. 0.30) and non‐nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer (0.85 vs. 0.62).
Conclusions:
Compared with conventional anatomic imaging, whole body PET/PET‐CT has excellent diagnostic performance for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Diagnostic Imaging - methods</subject><subject>distant malignancies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Head and neck neoplasms</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Head and Neck Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Lymph Nodes - pathology</subject><subject>Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>meta-analysis</subject><subject>Multimodal Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Neoplasm Invasiveness - pathology</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology (head neck, general aspects and miscellaneous)</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Whole Body Imaging - methods</subject><subject>whole body positron emission tomography</subject><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhSMEokNhwwMgb5AKUlo7zs-4u1FUWtAIEBoorCzHvpkxTexgexjylLwSTmdaWOGF_-53zpXuSZLnBJ8SjLOzTrjxNKM5Zg-SGSkoSXPGiofJLBZpOi-yr0fJE--_Y0wqWuDHyVGWVQXFuJolv2vbD8Jpbw2yLdptbAeosWpEg_U6uPgNvfZex0uwvV07MWxGdPLxYvXqLG6pjPptAPVvVRiFpDU_wYSoE138ELGsJdK9WGuzRq11SEEAGaaX0j4IE1AvOr02wkgNHmmDBhF09PBop8MGbUCoW2sD8gbJiIE7RwvUQxBp7NCNXvunyaNWdB6eHc7j5PObi1V9lS4_XL6tF8tUUlaxdN7OFWsYSEHiYoUqgDZtwdocyrxRhSIK5y3JFJSZaBWFpsxkRKqqwhgYocfJyd53cPbHFnzgcUoSuk4YsFvPCablvCpxPqGv96h01nsHLR9cnIMbI8SnAPkUIL8NMMIvDr7bpgd1j94lFoGXB0B4KbrWTePyf7mS5qQk88iRPbfTHYz_acmXi0_f7pqne03MA37da4S74WVFq4Jfv7_k-GpVX7N3Nf9C_wCspMfY</recordid><startdate>201209</startdate><enddate>201209</enddate><creator>Xu, Guozeng</creator><creator>Li, Junkai</creator><creator>Zuo, Xiaoyan</creator><creator>Li, Chunyan</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201209</creationdate><title>Comparison of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis</title><author>Xu, Guozeng ; Li, Junkai ; Zuo, Xiaoyan ; Li, Chunyan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3979-8f8d9b9eca111195d5e3bf59f4e64bd5d1d04f12de62afd3eb62ce3b77700e913</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Diagnostic Imaging - methods</topic><topic>distant malignancies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Head and neck neoplasms</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Head and Neck Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Lymph Nodes - pathology</topic><topic>Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>meta-analysis</topic><topic>Multimodal Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Neoplasm Invasiveness - pathology</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology (head neck, general aspects and miscellaneous)</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Positron-Emission Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Whole Body Imaging - methods</topic><topic>whole body positron emission tomography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xu, Guozeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Junkai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuo, Xiaoyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Chunyan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xu, Guozeng</au><au>Li, Junkai</au><au>Zuo, Xiaoyan</au><au>Li, Chunyan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle><addtitle>The Laryngoscope</addtitle><date>2012-09</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>122</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1974</spage><epage>1978</epage><pages>1974-1978</pages><issn>0023-852X</issn><eissn>1531-4995</eissn><coden>LARYA8</coden><abstract>Objectives/Hypothesis:
We aimed to compare the accuracy of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET‐computed tomography (CT) and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.
Study Design:
Meta‐Analysis.
Methods:
We performed a meta‐analysis of all available studies. We compared the performance of whole body PET/PET‐CT with that of conventional anatomic imaging by analyzing studies that had also used conventional anatomic imaging on the same patients.
Results:
Across eight studies (1,147 patients), sensitivity and specificity of PET/PET‐CT were 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.88) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94–0.97), respectively, and for conventional anatomic imaging were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29–0.61) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88–0.98), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that PET/PET‐CT had higher sensitivity than conventional anatomic imaging for nasopharyngeal cancer (0.82 vs. 0.30) and non‐nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer (0.85 vs. 0.62).
Conclusions:
Compared with conventional anatomic imaging, whole body PET/PET‐CT has excellent diagnostic performance for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>22753007</pmid><doi>10.1002/lary.23409</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0023-852X |
| ispartof | The Laryngoscope, 2012-09, Vol.122 (9), p.1974-1978 |
| issn | 0023-852X 1531-4995 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1036876041 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Diagnostic Imaging - methods distant malignancies Female Head and neck neoplasms Head and Neck Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Head and Neck Neoplasms - pathology Humans Lymph Nodes - diagnostic imaging Lymph Nodes - pathology Lymphatic Metastasis - diagnostic imaging Male Medical sciences meta-analysis Multimodal Imaging - methods Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Nasopharyngeal Neoplasms - pathology Neoplasm Invasiveness - pathology Neoplasm Staging Otorhinolaryngology (head neck, general aspects and miscellaneous) Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology Positron-Emission Tomography - methods Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography, X-Ray Computed Tumors Whole Body Imaging - methods whole body positron emission tomography |
| title | Comparison of whole body positron emission tomography (PET)/PET-computed tomography and conventional anatomic imaging for detecting distant malignancies in patients with head and neck cancer: A meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T06%3A50%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20whole%20body%20positron%20emission%20tomography%20(PET)/PET-computed%20tomography%20and%20conventional%20anatomic%20imaging%20for%20detecting%20distant%20malignancies%20in%20patients%20with%20head%20and%20neck%20cancer:%20A%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20Laryngoscope&rft.au=Xu,%20Guozeng&rft.date=2012-09&rft.volume=122&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1974&rft.epage=1978&rft.pages=1974-1978&rft.issn=0023-852X&rft.eissn=1531-4995&rft.coden=LARYA8&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lary.23409&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1036876041%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1036876041&rft_id=info:pmid/22753007&rfr_iscdi=true |