Applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Screening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Japanese journal of radiology 2024-09
Hauptverfasser: Das, K. J., Meena, J. K., Kumar, D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Japanese journal of radiology
container_volume
creator Das, K. J.
Meena, J. K.
Kumar, D.
description Screening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.PURPOSEScreening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The mean estimates of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and Odds ratio using 18F-FDG PET with a 95% confidence interval were 0.47 (0.25-0.69), 0.97 (0.95-0.98), 18.8 (6.8-51.5), 0.45 (0.27-0.76), 41.0 (7.9-211.8) and for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 (0.75-0.88), 0.98 (0.97-0.99), 49.7 (29.2-84.5), 0.15 (0.8-0.28), 329.9 (
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11604-024-01659-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3107162874</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3107162874</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c227t-64369938e7a0214b3119e0249d4e372b40087efb8a8b646527ee54794126006f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kDFPwzAQhS0EEqXwB5g8shhsx7UdtqrQglQJhiKxWU5yAaMkDnagys4Px20Rw-lu-O7evYfQJaPXjFJ1ExmTVBDKUzE5y4k4QhOmpSKM6tfj_1mxU3QW4welUmRCTNDPvO8bV9rCNW4Yse0q3EOofWhtVwL2NWZ6SZZ3K_x8vyGFjVDh1lc20Q4iTiDevvsGSOGrEZe7pYBjGQA6173dYovjGAdo7eBKHODbwXYv0sJgie1sM0YXz9FJbZsIF399il6W95vFA1k_rR4X8zUpOVcDSS_LPM80KEs5E0XGWA7Jcl4JyBQvBKVaQV1oqwsp5IwrgJlQuWBcJsN1NkVXh7t98J9fEAfTulhC09gO_Fc02S4gybUSCeUHtAw-xgC16YNrbRgNo2YXuTlEbpK-2UduRPYLk7Zzvg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3107162874</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Das, K. J. ; Meena, J. K. ; Kumar, D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Das, K. J. ; Meena, J. K. ; Kumar, D.</creatorcontrib><description>Screening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.PURPOSEScreening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The mean estimates of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and Odds ratio using 18F-FDG PET with a 95% confidence interval were 0.47 (0.25-0.69), 0.97 (0.95-0.98), 18.8 (6.8-51.5), 0.45 (0.27-0.76), 41.0 (7.9-211.8) and for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 (0.75-0.88), 0.98 (0.97-0.99), 49.7 (29.2-84.5), 0.15 (0.8-0.28), 329.9 (125.0-870.8), respectively. Among screening modalities, 18F-FDG PET/CT had a higher accuracy i.e., the area under the HSROC curve (AUC): 0.91 (0.87-0.95) compared to 18F-FDG PET: 0.72 (0.61-0.82).RESULTSSeventeen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The mean estimates of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and Odds ratio using 18F-FDG PET with a 95% confidence interval were 0.47 (0.25-0.69), 0.97 (0.95-0.98), 18.8 (6.8-51.5), 0.45 (0.27-0.76), 41.0 (7.9-211.8) and for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 (0.75-0.88), 0.98 (0.97-0.99), 49.7 (29.2-84.5), 0.15 (0.8-0.28), 329.9 (125.0-870.8), respectively. Among screening modalities, 18F-FDG PET/CT had a higher accuracy i.e., the area under the HSROC curve (AUC): 0.91 (0.87-0.95) compared to 18F-FDG PET: 0.72 (0.61-0.82).This study demonstrates that currently 18F-FDG PET-based screening has limited applicability for population-based cancer-screening programs. However, it has a promising role as a combined screening strategy for at-risk individuals and allows for comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic evaluation in high-resource settings.CONCLUSIONThis study demonstrates that currently 18F-FDG PET-based screening has limited applicability for population-based cancer-screening programs. However, it has a promising role as a combined screening strategy for at-risk individuals and allows for comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic evaluation in high-resource settings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1867-1071</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1867-108X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1867-108X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11604-024-01659-4</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Japanese journal of radiology, 2024-09</ispartof><rights>2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Japan Radiological Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c227t-64369938e7a0214b3119e0249d4e372b40087efb8a8b646527ee54794126006f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4912-9609</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27926,27927</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Das, K. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meena, J. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, D.</creatorcontrib><title>Applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Japanese journal of radiology</title><description>Screening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.PURPOSEScreening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The mean estimates of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and Odds ratio using 18F-FDG PET with a 95% confidence interval were 0.47 (0.25-0.69), 0.97 (0.95-0.98), 18.8 (6.8-51.5), 0.45 (0.27-0.76), 41.0 (7.9-211.8) and for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 (0.75-0.88), 0.98 (0.97-0.99), 49.7 (29.2-84.5), 0.15 (0.8-0.28), 329.9 (125.0-870.8), respectively. Among screening modalities, 18F-FDG PET/CT had a higher accuracy i.e., the area under the HSROC curve (AUC): 0.91 (0.87-0.95) compared to 18F-FDG PET: 0.72 (0.61-0.82).RESULTSSeventeen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The mean estimates of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and Odds ratio using 18F-FDG PET with a 95% confidence interval were 0.47 (0.25-0.69), 0.97 (0.95-0.98), 18.8 (6.8-51.5), 0.45 (0.27-0.76), 41.0 (7.9-211.8) and for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 (0.75-0.88), 0.98 (0.97-0.99), 49.7 (29.2-84.5), 0.15 (0.8-0.28), 329.9 (125.0-870.8), respectively. Among screening modalities, 18F-FDG PET/CT had a higher accuracy i.e., the area under the HSROC curve (AUC): 0.91 (0.87-0.95) compared to 18F-FDG PET: 0.72 (0.61-0.82).This study demonstrates that currently 18F-FDG PET-based screening has limited applicability for population-based cancer-screening programs. However, it has a promising role as a combined screening strategy for at-risk individuals and allows for comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic evaluation in high-resource settings.CONCLUSIONThis study demonstrates that currently 18F-FDG PET-based screening has limited applicability for population-based cancer-screening programs. However, it has a promising role as a combined screening strategy for at-risk individuals and allows for comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic evaluation in high-resource settings.</description><issn>1867-1071</issn><issn>1867-108X</issn><issn>1867-108X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kDFPwzAQhS0EEqXwB5g8shhsx7UdtqrQglQJhiKxWU5yAaMkDnagys4Px20Rw-lu-O7evYfQJaPXjFJ1ExmTVBDKUzE5y4k4QhOmpSKM6tfj_1mxU3QW4welUmRCTNDPvO8bV9rCNW4Yse0q3EOofWhtVwL2NWZ6SZZ3K_x8vyGFjVDh1lc20Q4iTiDevvsGSOGrEZe7pYBjGQA6173dYovjGAdo7eBKHODbwXYv0sJgie1sM0YXz9FJbZsIF399il6W95vFA1k_rR4X8zUpOVcDSS_LPM80KEs5E0XGWA7Jcl4JyBQvBKVaQV1oqwsp5IwrgJlQuWBcJsN1NkVXh7t98J9fEAfTulhC09gO_Fc02S4gybUSCeUHtAw-xgC16YNrbRgNo2YXuTlEbpK-2UduRPYLk7Zzvg</recordid><startdate>20240920</startdate><enddate>20240920</enddate><creator>Das, K. J.</creator><creator>Meena, J. K.</creator><creator>Kumar, D.</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4912-9609</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240920</creationdate><title>Applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Das, K. J. ; Meena, J. K. ; Kumar, D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c227t-64369938e7a0214b3119e0249d4e372b40087efb8a8b646527ee54794126006f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Das, K. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meena, J. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Japanese journal of radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Das, K. J.</au><au>Meena, J. K.</au><au>Kumar, D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Japanese journal of radiology</jtitle><date>2024-09-20</date><risdate>2024</risdate><issn>1867-1071</issn><issn>1867-108X</issn><eissn>1867-108X</eissn><abstract>Screening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.PURPOSEScreening tests are the cornerstone for early detection and optimal management of cancers. Most of the present cancer-screening tests are intrusive, time-consuming, and specifically target a particular anatomical site or cancer type. Only a few studies have reported the objective measures of 18F-FDG PET-based cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. This review and meta-analysis is an attempt to assess the applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening.The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were conducted using relevant MeSH terms and keywords, for articles published in the last 2 decades (2000-2022). Pooled estimates of diagnostic test accuracy-including sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) curve were generated using bivariate random-effects meta-analysis.Seventeen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The mean estimates of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and Odds ratio using 18F-FDG PET with a 95% confidence interval were 0.47 (0.25-0.69), 0.97 (0.95-0.98), 18.8 (6.8-51.5), 0.45 (0.27-0.76), 41.0 (7.9-211.8) and for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 (0.75-0.88), 0.98 (0.97-0.99), 49.7 (29.2-84.5), 0.15 (0.8-0.28), 329.9 (125.0-870.8), respectively. Among screening modalities, 18F-FDG PET/CT had a higher accuracy i.e., the area under the HSROC curve (AUC): 0.91 (0.87-0.95) compared to 18F-FDG PET: 0.72 (0.61-0.82).RESULTSSeventeen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 studies were deemed eligible for meta-analysis. The mean estimates of pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, negative-likelihood ratio, and Odds ratio using 18F-FDG PET with a 95% confidence interval were 0.47 (0.25-0.69), 0.97 (0.95-0.98), 18.8 (6.8-51.5), 0.45 (0.27-0.76), 41.0 (7.9-211.8) and for 18F-FDG PET/CT were 0.83 (0.75-0.88), 0.98 (0.97-0.99), 49.7 (29.2-84.5), 0.15 (0.8-0.28), 329.9 (125.0-870.8), respectively. Among screening modalities, 18F-FDG PET/CT had a higher accuracy i.e., the area under the HSROC curve (AUC): 0.91 (0.87-0.95) compared to 18F-FDG PET: 0.72 (0.61-0.82).This study demonstrates that currently 18F-FDG PET-based screening has limited applicability for population-based cancer-screening programs. However, it has a promising role as a combined screening strategy for at-risk individuals and allows for comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic evaluation in high-resource settings.CONCLUSIONThis study demonstrates that currently 18F-FDG PET-based screening has limited applicability for population-based cancer-screening programs. However, it has a promising role as a combined screening strategy for at-risk individuals and allows for comprehensive diagnostic and prognostic evaluation in high-resource settings.</abstract><doi>10.1007/s11604-024-01659-4</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4912-9609</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1867-1071
ispartof Japanese journal of radiology, 2024-09
issn 1867-1071
1867-108X
1867-108X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3107162874
source SpringerNature Journals
title Applicability and performance of 18F-FDG PET-based modalities for whole-body cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T04%3A01%3A10IST&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=Applicability%20and%20performance%20of%2018F-FDG%20PET-based%20modalities%20for%20whole-body%20cancer%20screening:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Japanese%20journal%20of%20radiology&rft.au=Das,%20K.%20J.&rft.date=2024-09-20&rft.issn=1867-1071&rft.eissn=1867-108X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11604-024-01659-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3107162874%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=3107162874&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true