Diagnostic accuracy of primary bone and soft tissue sarcomas by 18-FDG PET: Systematic review and meta-analysis

The goal of this meta-analysis was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy as measured by sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET in the diagnosis of primary bone and soft tissue sarcomas. . Several databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science were searched. In addition to sens...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical principles and practice 2019-12
Hauptverfasser: Younis, Manaf, Abualruz, Abdulrahman, Abu-Hijleh, Hasan, Aldahamsheh, Osama, Thalib, Lukman
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The goal of this meta-analysis was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy as measured by sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET in the diagnosis of primary bone and soft tissue sarcomas. . Several databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science were searched. In addition to sensitivity and specificity, the diagnostic accuracy region for detection and grading of sarcomas were pooled using Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (HSROC) models. Subgroup analysis included pooling soft tissue and bone sarcoma separately, and sensitivity analysis included the high-quality studies. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using QUADAS-2. Of the 1258 articles screened, 21 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate of the sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET combined with CT for the detection of sarcomas were 89.2% (95% CI: 83.6-93.1%) and 76.3% (95% CI: 69.8-81.9) respectively. These diagnostic accuracy measures were higher when combined with CT than those of PDG-PET alone. Diagnostic accuracy for bone and soft tissue lesions were comparable, but slightly better for soft tissue tumors. Pooling only the high-quality studies with low risk of bias yielded a sensitivity of 88.5% and specificity reduced to 65.6%. There was no evidence for publication bias, but significant heterogeneity (P
ISSN:1423-0151
DOI:10.1159/000505651