Clinical nuclear medicine · 2022
Diagnostic Test Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for Characterization of Histologic Type of Thymic Epithelial Tumor: A Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kim Keunyoung, Jeong Joon-Hoon, Kim Seong-Jang
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study investigated diagnostic accuracies of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for characterization of histologic type of thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane database, and EMBASE database, from the earliest available date of indexing through August 31, 2020, were searched for studies evaluating diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for characterization of TET. We determined the sensitivities and specificities, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.95), and the pooled specificity was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.87) for differentiation between thymic cancer and thymoma. Likelihood ratio syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.9 and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.14. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 28 (95% CI, 13-63). The pooled sensitivity was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96), and the pooled specificity was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.68-0.89) for differential diagnosis of a low-risk or high-risk TET. LR+ was 4.7 and LR- was 0.12. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 38 (95% CI, 12-121). In meta-regression analysis, no variable was the source of the study heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT has excellent diagnostic performances for characterization of TET. Further large multicenter studies would be necessary to establish the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for differentiation of histologic type of TET.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane database, and EMBASE database, from the earliest available date of indexing through August 31, 2020, were searched for studies evaluating diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for characterization of TET. We determined the sensitivities and specificities, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.95), and the pooled specificity was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.87) for differentiation between thymic cancer and thymoma. Likelihood ratio syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.9 and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.14. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 28 (95% CI, 13-63). The pooled sensitivity was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.75-0.96), and the pooled specificity was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.68-0.89) for differential diagnosis of a low-risk or high-risk TET. LR+ was 4.7 and LR- was 0.12. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 38 (95% CI, 12-121). In meta-regression analysis, no variable was the source of the study heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT has excellent diagnostic performances for characterization of TET. Further large multicenter studies would be necessary to establish the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT for differentiation of histologic type of TET.