Clinical radiology · 2026
[18F]FDG PET/CT versus pelvic MRI in preoperative diagnosis of lateral lymph node metastasis in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Meng Q, Yu B, Ma H, Li Z, Zhang X, Tian Z, Niu W
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of the study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG PET/CT) and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the preoperative detection of lateral lymph node metastasis (LLNM) in rectal cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted up to July 2024. Studies comparing [18F]FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI for LLNM diagnosis were included. Quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was explored via meta-regression.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies comprising 2,209 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity metrics were predominantly based on patient-level data (82.6% of included studies), alongside a minor proportion of lesion-level data. [18F]FDG PET/CT demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.76) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99). Pelvic MRI exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.85) and specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.88). No statistically significant difference was observed in the sensitivity between [18F]FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI (P = 0.09), whereas [18F]FDG PET/CT demonstrated significantly higher specificity (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: [18F]FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI demonstrated no significant difference in sensitivity for detecting LLNM in rectal cancer, while [18F]FDG PET/CT appeared to have higher specificity. The high specificity of [18F]FDG PET/CT may help exclude false positives, thereby preventing unnecessary lateral lymph node dissections and associated morbidity. Future research should focus on larger, prospective head-to-head studies to establish clearer guidelines for their application in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted up to July 2024. Studies comparing [18F]FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI for LLNM diagnosis were included. Quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was explored via meta-regression.
RESULTS: Twenty-three studies comprising 2,209 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity metrics were predominantly based on patient-level data (82.6% of included studies), alongside a minor proportion of lesion-level data. [18F]FDG PET/CT demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.76) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99). Pelvic MRI exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.67-0.85) and specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.88). No statistically significant difference was observed in the sensitivity between [18F]FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI (P = 0.09), whereas [18F]FDG PET/CT demonstrated significantly higher specificity (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: [18F]FDG PET/CT and pelvic MRI demonstrated no significant difference in sensitivity for detecting LLNM in rectal cancer, while [18F]FDG PET/CT appeared to have higher specificity. The high specificity of [18F]FDG PET/CT may help exclude false positives, thereby preventing unnecessary lateral lymph node dissections and associated morbidity. Future research should focus on larger, prospective head-to-head studies to establish clearer guidelines for their application in clinical practice.