Diagnostic Performance of [ 18 F]F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non-Ophthalmic Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 10,000 Melanoma Patients
We described the diagnostic performance of [ F]F-FDG-PET in malignant melanoma by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature. The study was designed following PRISMA-DTA. Original articles with adequate crude data for meta-analytic calculations that eva...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cancers 2024-01, Vol.16 (1), p.215 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 215 |
container_title | Cancers |
container_volume | 16 |
creator | Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali Pirich, Christian Beheshti, Mohsen |
description | We described the diagnostic performance of [
F]F-FDG-PET in malignant melanoma by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature. The study was designed following PRISMA-DTA. Original articles with adequate crude data for meta-analytic calculations that evaluated [
F]F-FDG-PET and compared it with a valid reference standard were considered eligible. The pooled measurements were calculated based on the data level (patient/lesion-based). Regarding sub-groups, diagnostic performances were calculated for local, regional and distant involvement. The bivariate model was employed to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The initial search resulted in 6678 studies. Finally, 100 entered the meta-analysis, containing 82 patient-based (10,403 patients) and 32 lesion-based (6188 lesions) datasets. At patient level, overall, [
F]F-FDG-PET had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 81% (95%CI: 73-87%) and 92% (95%CI: 90-94%), respectively. To detect regional lymph node metastasis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95%CI: 40-72%) and 97% (95%CI: 94-99%), respectively. To detect distant metastasis, they were 88% (95%CI: 81-93%) and 94% (95%CI: 91-96%), respectively. At lesion level, [
F]F-FDG-PET had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 70% (95%CI: 57-80%) and 94% (95%CI: 88-97%), respectively. Thus, [
F]F-FDG-PET is a valuable diagnostic modality for melanoma assessment. It was accurate in various clinical scenarios. However, despite its high specificity, it showed low sensitivity in detecting regional lymph node metastasis and could not replace lymph node biopsy. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3390/cancers16010215 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10778455</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2912522769</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-41aed9902eaafa94afca4935dfbd20ba21e5eb43be932589541e4d71a9137cce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkk1vEzEQhlcIRKvSMzdkiUuRWOrP3ZgLitqkIDU0gnBCaDXrnU1c7drB3rTKb-ufw6ElKvXFI80z7zszmix7zegHITQ9NeAMhsgKyihn6ll2yGnJ86LQ8vmj-CA7jvGapicEK4vyZXYgRpyyQvLD7O7cwtL5OFhD5hhaH_qdKvEt-UnYiEx_TfPp-QWZ-2iH4B2Z9DZGm4KF7_0ywHq1JSfzyeIdsY589S6_Wq-GFXR9EpxBZ5cO3EBm2IHzPXwkY_J9GwfsYef4DW8s3hJwTSIGyMcOum20cWc_8wHJYgWOMPo-Nb_XIPNUi26Ir7IXLXQRjx_-o-zHdLI4-5xfXl18ORtf5kZyPuSSATZaU44ALWgJrQGphWrauuG0Bs5QYS1FjVpwNdJKMpRNyUAzURqD4ij7dK-73tQ9NiZ5B-iqdbA9hG3lwVb_Z5xdVUt_UzFaliOpVFI4eVAI_vcG41ClLRrs0kDoN7HiyUpKxRRL6Nsn6LXfhLSXvxRXnJeFTtTpPWWCjzFgu--G0Wp3HNWT40gVbx4Psef_nYL4A8rvty0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2912522769</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic Performance of [ 18 F]F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non-Ophthalmic Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 10,000 Melanoma Patients</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin ; Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali ; Pirich, Christian ; Beheshti, Mohsen</creator><creatorcontrib>Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin ; Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali ; Pirich, Christian ; Beheshti, Mohsen</creatorcontrib><description>We described the diagnostic performance of [
F]F-FDG-PET in malignant melanoma by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature. The study was designed following PRISMA-DTA. Original articles with adequate crude data for meta-analytic calculations that evaluated [
F]F-FDG-PET and compared it with a valid reference standard were considered eligible. The pooled measurements were calculated based on the data level (patient/lesion-based). Regarding sub-groups, diagnostic performances were calculated for local, regional and distant involvement. The bivariate model was employed to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The initial search resulted in 6678 studies. Finally, 100 entered the meta-analysis, containing 82 patient-based (10,403 patients) and 32 lesion-based (6188 lesions) datasets. At patient level, overall, [
F]F-FDG-PET had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 81% (95%CI: 73-87%) and 92% (95%CI: 90-94%), respectively. To detect regional lymph node metastasis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95%CI: 40-72%) and 97% (95%CI: 94-99%), respectively. To detect distant metastasis, they were 88% (95%CI: 81-93%) and 94% (95%CI: 91-96%), respectively. At lesion level, [
F]F-FDG-PET had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 70% (95%CI: 57-80%) and 94% (95%CI: 88-97%), respectively. Thus, [
F]F-FDG-PET is a valuable diagnostic modality for melanoma assessment. It was accurate in various clinical scenarios. However, despite its high specificity, it showed low sensitivity in detecting regional lymph node metastasis and could not replace lymph node biopsy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2072-6694</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2072-6694</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/cancers16010215</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38201642</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Biopsy ; Datasets ; Diagnosis ; Histopathology ; Lesions ; Lymph nodes ; Lymphatic system ; Malignancy ; Melanoma ; Meta-analysis ; Metastases ; Metastasis ; Patients ; Positron emission tomography ; Skin cancer ; Systematic Review ; Tomography</subject><ispartof>Cancers, 2024-01, Vol.16 (1), p.215</ispartof><rights>2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2024 by the authors. 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-41aed9902eaafa94afca4935dfbd20ba21e5eb43be932589541e4d71a9137cce3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-41aed9902eaafa94afca4935dfbd20ba21e5eb43be932589541e4d71a9137cce3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3918-3812 ; 0000-0003-2271-9764 ; 0000-0002-4502-0609</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10778455/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10778455/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38201642$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirich, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beheshti, Mohsen</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic Performance of [ 18 F]F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non-Ophthalmic Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 10,000 Melanoma Patients</title><title>Cancers</title><addtitle>Cancers (Basel)</addtitle><description>We described the diagnostic performance of [
F]F-FDG-PET in malignant melanoma by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature. The study was designed following PRISMA-DTA. Original articles with adequate crude data for meta-analytic calculations that evaluated [
F]F-FDG-PET and compared it with a valid reference standard were considered eligible. The pooled measurements were calculated based on the data level (patient/lesion-based). Regarding sub-groups, diagnostic performances were calculated for local, regional and distant involvement. The bivariate model was employed to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The initial search resulted in 6678 studies. Finally, 100 entered the meta-analysis, containing 82 patient-based (10,403 patients) and 32 lesion-based (6188 lesions) datasets. At patient level, overall, [
F]F-FDG-PET had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 81% (95%CI: 73-87%) and 92% (95%CI: 90-94%), respectively. To detect regional lymph node metastasis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95%CI: 40-72%) and 97% (95%CI: 94-99%), respectively. To detect distant metastasis, they were 88% (95%CI: 81-93%) and 94% (95%CI: 91-96%), respectively. At lesion level, [
F]F-FDG-PET had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 70% (95%CI: 57-80%) and 94% (95%CI: 88-97%), respectively. Thus, [
F]F-FDG-PET is a valuable diagnostic modality for melanoma assessment. It was accurate in various clinical scenarios. However, despite its high specificity, it showed low sensitivity in detecting regional lymph node metastasis and could not replace lymph node biopsy.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Histopathology</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Lymph nodes</subject><subject>Lymphatic system</subject><subject>Malignancy</subject><subject>Melanoma</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Skin cancer</subject><subject>Systematic Review</subject><subject>Tomography</subject><issn>2072-6694</issn><issn>2072-6694</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkk1vEzEQhlcIRKvSMzdkiUuRWOrP3ZgLitqkIDU0gnBCaDXrnU1c7drB3rTKb-ufw6ElKvXFI80z7zszmix7zegHITQ9NeAMhsgKyihn6ll2yGnJ86LQ8vmj-CA7jvGapicEK4vyZXYgRpyyQvLD7O7cwtL5OFhD5hhaH_qdKvEt-UnYiEx_TfPp-QWZ-2iH4B2Z9DZGm4KF7_0ywHq1JSfzyeIdsY589S6_Wq-GFXR9EpxBZ5cO3EBm2IHzPXwkY_J9GwfsYef4DW8s3hJwTSIGyMcOum20cWc_8wHJYgWOMPo-Nb_XIPNUi26Ir7IXLXQRjx_-o-zHdLI4-5xfXl18ORtf5kZyPuSSATZaU44ALWgJrQGphWrauuG0Bs5QYS1FjVpwNdJKMpRNyUAzURqD4ij7dK-73tQ9NiZ5B-iqdbA9hG3lwVb_Z5xdVUt_UzFaliOpVFI4eVAI_vcG41ClLRrs0kDoN7HiyUpKxRRL6Nsn6LXfhLSXvxRXnJeFTtTpPWWCjzFgu--G0Wp3HNWT40gVbx4Psef_nYL4A8rvty0</recordid><startdate>20240102</startdate><enddate>20240102</enddate><creator>Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin</creator><creator>Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali</creator><creator>Pirich, Christian</creator><creator>Beheshti, Mohsen</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3918-3812</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2271-9764</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4502-0609</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240102</creationdate><title>Diagnostic Performance of [ 18 F]F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non-Ophthalmic Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 10,000 Melanoma Patients</title><author>Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin ; Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali ; Pirich, Christian ; Beheshti, Mohsen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c422t-41aed9902eaafa94afca4935dfbd20ba21e5eb43be932589541e4d71a9137cce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Histopathology</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Lymph nodes</topic><topic>Lymphatic system</topic><topic>Malignancy</topic><topic>Melanoma</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Skin cancer</topic><topic>Systematic Review</topic><topic>Tomography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pirich, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beheshti, Mohsen</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Cancers</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zamani-Siahkali, Nazanin</au><au>Mirshahvalad, Seyed Ali</au><au>Pirich, Christian</au><au>Beheshti, Mohsen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic Performance of [ 18 F]F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non-Ophthalmic Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 10,000 Melanoma Patients</atitle><jtitle>Cancers</jtitle><addtitle>Cancers (Basel)</addtitle><date>2024-01-02</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>215</spage><pages>215-</pages><issn>2072-6694</issn><eissn>2072-6694</eissn><abstract>We described the diagnostic performance of [
F]F-FDG-PET in malignant melanoma by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature. The study was designed following PRISMA-DTA. Original articles with adequate crude data for meta-analytic calculations that evaluated [
F]F-FDG-PET and compared it with a valid reference standard were considered eligible. The pooled measurements were calculated based on the data level (patient/lesion-based). Regarding sub-groups, diagnostic performances were calculated for local, regional and distant involvement. The bivariate model was employed to calculate sensitivity and specificity. The initial search resulted in 6678 studies. Finally, 100 entered the meta-analysis, containing 82 patient-based (10,403 patients) and 32 lesion-based (6188 lesions) datasets. At patient level, overall, [
F]F-FDG-PET had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 81% (95%CI: 73-87%) and 92% (95%CI: 90-94%), respectively. To detect regional lymph node metastasis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 56% (95%CI: 40-72%) and 97% (95%CI: 94-99%), respectively. To detect distant metastasis, they were 88% (95%CI: 81-93%) and 94% (95%CI: 91-96%), respectively. At lesion level, [
F]F-FDG-PET had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 70% (95%CI: 57-80%) and 94% (95%CI: 88-97%), respectively. Thus, [
F]F-FDG-PET is a valuable diagnostic modality for melanoma assessment. It was accurate in various clinical scenarios. However, despite its high specificity, it showed low sensitivity in detecting regional lymph node metastasis and could not replace lymph node biopsy.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>38201642</pmid><doi>10.3390/cancers16010215</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3918-3812</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2271-9764</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4502-0609</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2072-6694 |
ispartof | Cancers, 2024-01, Vol.16 (1), p.215 |
issn | 2072-6694 2072-6694 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10778455 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; PubMed Central |
subjects | Accuracy Biopsy Datasets Diagnosis Histopathology Lesions Lymph nodes Lymphatic system Malignancy Melanoma Meta-analysis Metastases Metastasis Patients Positron emission tomography Skin cancer Systematic Review Tomography |
title | Diagnostic Performance of [ 18 F]F-FDG Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in Non-Ophthalmic Malignant Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 10,000 Melanoma Patients |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T01%3A46%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20Performance%20of%20%5B%2018%20F%5DF-FDG%20Positron%20Emission%20Tomography%20(PET)%20in%20Non-Ophthalmic%20Malignant%20Melanoma:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20More%20Than%2010,000%20Melanoma%20Patients&rft.jtitle=Cancers&rft.au=Zamani-Siahkali,%20Nazanin&rft.date=2024-01-02&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=215&rft.pages=215-&rft.issn=2072-6694&rft.eissn=2072-6694&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/cancers16010215&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2912522769%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2912522769&rft_id=info:pmid/38201642&rfr_iscdi=true |