scholarly journals Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with spinal infection: a systematic review and a bivariate meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1287-1301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Treglia ◽  
Mariarosa Pascale ◽  
Elena Lazzeri ◽  
Wouter van der Bruggen ◽  
Roberto C. Delgado Bolton ◽  
...  
BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xianwen Hu ◽  
Dandan Li ◽  
Zhigang Liang ◽  
Yan Liao ◽  
Ling Yang ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To compare the value of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors. Materials and methods English articles reporting on the diagnostic performance of MRI or 18F-FDG PET/CT in identifying benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors published in PubMed and Embase between January 2000 and January 2021 were included in the meta-analysis. Two authors independently extracted the data. If the data presented in the study report could be used to construct a 2 × 2 contingency table comparing 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI, the studies were selected for the analysis. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Forest plots were generated according to the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI. Results A total of 27 articles, including 1118F-FDG PET/CT studies and 17 MRI studies on the differentiation of benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors, were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 18F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87–0.97) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79–0.91), respectively, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRI were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89–0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79–0.89), respectively. Conclusion While MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT both showed to have high and similar diagnostic performance in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors, MRI, a promising non-radiation imaging technology, may be a more suitable choice for patients with ovarian or accessory tumors. Nonetheless, prospective studies directly comparing MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT diagnostic performance in the differentiation of benign and malignant ovarian or adnexal tumors are needed.


Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Veronika Ballova ◽  
Barbara Muoio ◽  
Domenico Albano ◽  
Francesco Bertagna ◽  
Luca Canziani ◽  
...  

Background: Some studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET or PET/CT) for the detection of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD). As there is no clear consensus about the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging methods, we performed a meta-analysis on this topic. Methods: A comprehensive computer literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases through December 2019 was performed. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for detection of PTLD were calculated. Results: Five studies reporting data on the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in 336 transplant recipients were included in the systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for detection of PTLD were 89.7% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 84.6–93.2%) and 90.9% (95%CI: 85.9–94.3%), respectively. Pooled LR+, LR−, and DOR were 8.9 (95%CI: 5.7–14), 0.13 (95%CI: 0.08–0.2), and 70.4 (95%CI: 35.4–140), respectively. A significant heterogeneity among studies was not detected. Conclusions: Despite limited literature data, 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT demonstrated good diagnostic performance for the detection of PTLD, but large prospective studies are needed to strengthen these findings.


2012 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lian-Ming Wu ◽  
Fang-Yuan Chen ◽  
Xiao-Xing Jiang ◽  
Hai-Yan Gu ◽  
Yan Yin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document