Accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary staging and diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer: A meta-analysis
Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is commonly used for staging and diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer. Recently, F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ( F-FDG PET)/CT gained popularity as a diagnostic tool owing to advantages including dual functional and anatomical imaging,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Experimental and therapeutic medicine 2021-02, Vol.21 (2), p.164 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 164 |
container_title | Experimental and therapeutic medicine |
container_volume | 21 |
creator | Zhang, Zhicheng Zheng, Bo Chen, Wei Xiong, Hui Jiang, Caiming |
description | Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is commonly used for staging and diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer. Recently,
F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (
F-FDG PET)/CT gained popularity as a diagnostic tool owing to advantages including dual functional and anatomical imaging, which may facilitate early diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT has been assessed in several studies but with variable results. Therefore, the present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary TNM staging and the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancers. A systematic search of the PubMed Central, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane and Embase databases from inception until January 2020 was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study-2 tool was used to determine the quality of the selected studies. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A total of 58 studies comprising 9,997 patients were included. Most studies had a low risk of bias. The sensitivity and specificity for nodal staging of gastric cancer were 49% (95% CI, 37-61%) and 92% (95% CI, 86-96%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 67% (95% CI, 57-76%) and 86% (95% CI, 81-89%) for CECT, respectively. For metastasis staging, the sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95% CI, 40-71%) and 97% (95% CI, 87-99%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. For diagnosing cancer recurrence, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% CI, 72-88%) and 83% (95% CI, 74-89%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. Both
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT were deemed highly useful for diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer due to their high sensitivities and specificities. However, these techniques cannot be used to exclude or confirm the presence of lymph node metastases or recurrent gastric cancer tumors, but can be used for the confirmation of distal metastasis. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>pubmed</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_33456531</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>33456531</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-pubmed_primary_334565313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFTssOgjAQ7EEjRPkFsz9ApFYQvBEEPXrgTtZSSA0U0sKBvxcNnp3LbDKPnRWx6Tk6ul4UUos4xry8GX5Aw9DfEIuxkx_4jNrExJyPGvkEXQU0hMzNrjd4pPkhyQFVCUk6H1WnodeyRT2BGbCWqv6KpcRadUaaT1qLuUkLNUCNZtCSA0fFhb5ADK0Y0EWFzTSbd2RdYWOEs_CW7LM0T-5uPz5bURbLp-K3kv01vAFickb9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary staging and diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer: A meta-analysis</title><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Zhang, Zhicheng ; Zheng, Bo ; Chen, Wei ; Xiong, Hui ; Jiang, Caiming</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Zhicheng ; Zheng, Bo ; Chen, Wei ; Xiong, Hui ; Jiang, Caiming</creatorcontrib><description>Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is commonly used for staging and diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer. Recently,
F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (
F-FDG PET)/CT gained popularity as a diagnostic tool owing to advantages including dual functional and anatomical imaging, which may facilitate early diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT has been assessed in several studies but with variable results. Therefore, the present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary TNM staging and the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancers. A systematic search of the PubMed Central, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane and Embase databases from inception until January 2020 was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study-2 tool was used to determine the quality of the selected studies. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A total of 58 studies comprising 9,997 patients were included. Most studies had a low risk of bias. The sensitivity and specificity for nodal staging of gastric cancer were 49% (95% CI, 37-61%) and 92% (95% CI, 86-96%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 67% (95% CI, 57-76%) and 86% (95% CI, 81-89%) for CECT, respectively. For metastasis staging, the sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95% CI, 40-71%) and 97% (95% CI, 87-99%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. For diagnosing cancer recurrence, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% CI, 72-88%) and 83% (95% CI, 74-89%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. Both
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT were deemed highly useful for diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer due to their high sensitivities and specificities. However, these techniques cannot be used to exclude or confirm the presence of lymph node metastases or recurrent gastric cancer tumors, but can be used for the confirmation of distal metastasis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1792-0981</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33456531</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Greece</publisher><ispartof>Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021-02, Vol.21 (2), p.164</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © Zhang et al.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33456531$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Zhicheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiong, Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Caiming</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary staging and diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer: A meta-analysis</title><title>Experimental and therapeutic medicine</title><addtitle>Exp Ther Med</addtitle><description>Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is commonly used for staging and diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer. Recently,
F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (
F-FDG PET)/CT gained popularity as a diagnostic tool owing to advantages including dual functional and anatomical imaging, which may facilitate early diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT has been assessed in several studies but with variable results. Therefore, the present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary TNM staging and the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancers. A systematic search of the PubMed Central, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane and Embase databases from inception until January 2020 was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study-2 tool was used to determine the quality of the selected studies. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A total of 58 studies comprising 9,997 patients were included. Most studies had a low risk of bias. The sensitivity and specificity for nodal staging of gastric cancer were 49% (95% CI, 37-61%) and 92% (95% CI, 86-96%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 67% (95% CI, 57-76%) and 86% (95% CI, 81-89%) for CECT, respectively. For metastasis staging, the sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95% CI, 40-71%) and 97% (95% CI, 87-99%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. For diagnosing cancer recurrence, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% CI, 72-88%) and 83% (95% CI, 74-89%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. Both
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT were deemed highly useful for diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer due to their high sensitivities and specificities. However, these techniques cannot be used to exclude or confirm the presence of lymph node metastases or recurrent gastric cancer tumors, but can be used for the confirmation of distal metastasis.</description><issn>1792-0981</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFTssOgjAQ7EEjRPkFsz9ApFYQvBEEPXrgTtZSSA0U0sKBvxcNnp3LbDKPnRWx6Tk6ul4UUos4xry8GX5Aw9DfEIuxkx_4jNrExJyPGvkEXQU0hMzNrjd4pPkhyQFVCUk6H1WnodeyRT2BGbCWqv6KpcRadUaaT1qLuUkLNUCNZtCSA0fFhb5ADK0Y0EWFzTSbd2RdYWOEs_CW7LM0T-5uPz5bURbLp-K3kv01vAFickb9</recordid><startdate>202102</startdate><enddate>202102</enddate><creator>Zhang, Zhicheng</creator><creator>Zheng, Bo</creator><creator>Chen, Wei</creator><creator>Xiong, Hui</creator><creator>Jiang, Caiming</creator><scope>NPM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202102</creationdate><title>Accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary staging and diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer: A meta-analysis</title><author>Zhang, Zhicheng ; Zheng, Bo ; Chen, Wei ; Xiong, Hui ; Jiang, Caiming</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-pubmed_primary_334565313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Zhicheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xiong, Hui</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiang, Caiming</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><jtitle>Experimental and therapeutic medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhang, Zhicheng</au><au>Zheng, Bo</au><au>Chen, Wei</au><au>Xiong, Hui</au><au>Jiang, Caiming</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary staging and diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer: A meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Experimental and therapeutic medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Exp Ther Med</addtitle><date>2021-02</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>164</spage><pages>164-</pages><issn>1792-0981</issn><abstract>Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is commonly used for staging and diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer. Recently,
F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (
F-FDG PET)/CT gained popularity as a diagnostic tool owing to advantages including dual functional and anatomical imaging, which may facilitate early diagnosis. The diagnostic performance of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT has been assessed in several studies but with variable results. Therefore, the present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary TNM staging and the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancers. A systematic search of the PubMed Central, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane and Embase databases from inception until January 2020 was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Study-2 tool was used to determine the quality of the selected studies. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. A total of 58 studies comprising 9,997 patients were included. Most studies had a low risk of bias. The sensitivity and specificity for nodal staging of gastric cancer were 49% (95% CI, 37-61%) and 92% (95% CI, 86-96%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 67% (95% CI, 57-76%) and 86% (95% CI, 81-89%) for CECT, respectively. For metastasis staging, the sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95% CI, 40-71%) and 97% (95% CI, 87-99%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. For diagnosing cancer recurrence, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 81% (95% CI, 72-88%) and 83% (95% CI, 74-89%) for
F-FDG PET/CT, respectively, and 59% (95% CI, 41-75%) and 96% (95% CI, 83-99%) for CECT, respectively. Both
F-FDG PET/CT and CECT were deemed highly useful for diagnosing recurrent gastric cancer due to their high sensitivities and specificities. However, these techniques cannot be used to exclude or confirm the presence of lymph node metastases or recurrent gastric cancer tumors, but can be used for the confirmation of distal metastasis.</abstract><cop>Greece</cop><pmid>33456531</pmid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1792-0981 |
ispartof | Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021-02, Vol.21 (2), p.164 |
issn | 1792-0981 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_33456531 |
source | PubMed Central |
title | Accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET/CT and CECT for primary staging and diagnosis of recurrent gastric 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=2024-12-12T06%3A46%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmed&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%2018%20F-FDG%20PET/CT%20and%20CECT%20for%20primary%20staging%20and%20diagnosis%20of%20recurrent%20gastric%20cancer:%20A%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Experimental%20and%20therapeutic%20medicine&rft.au=Zhang,%20Zhicheng&rft.date=2021-02&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=164&rft.pages=164-&rft.issn=1792-0981&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cpubmed%3E33456531%3C/pubmed%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/33456531&rfr_iscdi=true |