Abdominal imaging · 2015
Comparison of PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis: a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Li Jinkui, Yan Ruifeng, Lei Junqiang, Jiang Changqin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The study aims to perform a meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic value of FDG PET with PET/CT in detecting peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) to identify the potentially most useful diagnostic modality.
METHODS: A computer-aided search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the China Biological Medicine Database, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and Wanfang databases for articles concerning diagnosis of peritoneal metastases with PET or PET/CT. QUADAS was used to evaluate the included articles' quality.
RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity of PET/CT (84%) was significantly higher than that of PET (60%), and the pooled specificity of PET (98%) was markedly higher than that for PET/CT (94%). On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 87 and 95%, respectively. Only 1 PET study on a per-lesion basis, its sensitivity is 65.8 and specificity is 94.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: PET and PET/CT are powerful imaging techniques for detection and characterization of PC. PET/CT can be used as a screening tool and it may be acceptable to use PET as a diagnosis tool.
METHODS: A computer-aided search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the China Biological Medicine Database, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and Wanfang databases for articles concerning diagnosis of peritoneal metastases with PET or PET/CT. QUADAS was used to evaluate the included articles' quality.
RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, the pooled sensitivity of PET/CT (84%) was significantly higher than that of PET (60%), and the pooled specificity of PET (98%) was markedly higher than that for PET/CT (94%). On a per-lesion basis, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 87 and 95%, respectively. Only 1 PET study on a per-lesion basis, its sensitivity is 65.8 and specificity is 94.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: PET and PET/CT are powerful imaging techniques for detection and characterization of PC. PET/CT can be used as a screening tool and it may be acceptable to use PET as a diagnosis tool.