Diagnosing Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, 18F-NaF-PET/CT, MRI, Contrast-Enhanced CT, and Bone Scintigraphy.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Oke Gerke, Mohammad Naghavi-Behzad, Sofie Tind Nygaard, Victoria Raha Sigaroudi, Marianne Vogsen, Werner Vach, Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt
{"title":"Diagnosing Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies of 2-[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG-PET/CT, <sup>18</sup>F-NaF-PET/CT, MRI, Contrast-Enhanced CT, and Bone Scintigraphy.","authors":"Oke Gerke, Mohammad Naghavi-Behzad, Sofie Tind Nygaard, Victoria Raha Sigaroudi, Marianne Vogsen, Werner Vach, Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt","doi":"10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2024.10.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2-[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG-PET/CT, <sup>18</sup>F-NaF-PET/CT, MRI, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone scintigraphy for diagnosing bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Following PRISMA-DTA guidelines, we reviewed studies assessing 2-[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG-PET/CT, <sup>18</sup>F-NaF-PET/CT, MRI, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone scintigraphy for diagnosing bone metastases in high-stage primary breast cancer (stage III or IV) or known primary breast cancer with suspicion of recurrence (staging or re-staging). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted until February 2024. Inclusion criteria were original studies using these imaging methods, excluding those focused on AI/machine learning, primary breast cancer without metastases, mixed cancer types, preclinical studies, and lesion-based accuracy. Preference was given to studies using biopsy or follow-up as the reference standard. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Screening, bias assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. We applied bivariate random-effects models in meta-analysis and network meta-analyzed differences in sensitivity and specificity between the modalities. Forty studies were included, with 29 contributing to the meta-analyses. Of these, 13 studies investigated one single modality only. Both 2-[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG-PET/CT (sensitivity: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97; specificity: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99), MRI (0.94, 0.82-0.98; 0.93, 0.87-0.96), and <sup>18</sup>F-NaF-PET/CT (0.95, 0.85-0.98; 1, 0.93-1) outperformed the less sensitive modalities CE-CT (0.70, 0.62-0.77; 0.98, 0.97-0.99) and bone scintigraphy (0.83, 0.75-0.88; 0.96, 0.87-0.99). The network meta-analysis of multi-modality studies supports the comparable performance of 2-[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG-PET/CT and MRI in diagnosing bone metastases (estimated differences in sensitivity and specificity, respectively: 0.01, -0.16 - 0.18; -0.02, -0.15 - 0.12). The results from bivariate random effects modelling and network meta-analysis were consistent for all modalities apart from <sup>18</sup>F-NaF-PET/CT. We concluded that 2-[<sup>18</sup>F]FDG-PET/CT and MRI have high and comparable accuracy for diagnosing bone metastases in breast cancer patients. Both outperformed CE-CT and bone scintigraphy regarding sensitivity. Future multimodality studies based on consented thresholds are warranted for further exploration, especially in terms of the potential role of <sup>18</sup>F-NaF-PET/CT in bone metastasis diagnosis in breast cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":21643,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in nuclear medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in nuclear medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2024.10.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, 18F-NaF-PET/CT, MRI, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone scintigraphy for diagnosing bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Following PRISMA-DTA guidelines, we reviewed studies assessing 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT, 18F-NaF-PET/CT, MRI, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone scintigraphy for diagnosing bone metastases in high-stage primary breast cancer (stage III or IV) or known primary breast cancer with suspicion of recurrence (staging or re-staging). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted until February 2024. Inclusion criteria were original studies using these imaging methods, excluding those focused on AI/machine learning, primary breast cancer without metastases, mixed cancer types, preclinical studies, and lesion-based accuracy. Preference was given to studies using biopsy or follow-up as the reference standard. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Screening, bias assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. We applied bivariate random-effects models in meta-analysis and network meta-analyzed differences in sensitivity and specificity between the modalities. Forty studies were included, with 29 contributing to the meta-analyses. Of these, 13 studies investigated one single modality only. Both 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT (sensitivity: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.97; specificity: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99), MRI (0.94, 0.82-0.98; 0.93, 0.87-0.96), and 18F-NaF-PET/CT (0.95, 0.85-0.98; 1, 0.93-1) outperformed the less sensitive modalities CE-CT (0.70, 0.62-0.77; 0.98, 0.97-0.99) and bone scintigraphy (0.83, 0.75-0.88; 0.96, 0.87-0.99). The network meta-analysis of multi-modality studies supports the comparable performance of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT and MRI in diagnosing bone metastases (estimated differences in sensitivity and specificity, respectively: 0.01, -0.16 - 0.18; -0.02, -0.15 - 0.12). The results from bivariate random effects modelling and network meta-analysis were consistent for all modalities apart from 18F-NaF-PET/CT. We concluded that 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT and MRI have high and comparable accuracy for diagnosing bone metastases in breast cancer patients. Both outperformed CE-CT and bone scintigraphy regarding sensitivity. Future multimodality studies based on consented thresholds are warranted for further exploration, especially in terms of the potential role of 18F-NaF-PET/CT in bone metastasis diagnosis in breast cancer.

诊断乳腺癌骨转移:关于 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT、18F-NaF-PET/CT、核磁共振成像、对比增强 CT 和骨闪烁成像诊断测试准确性研究的系统性综述和网络 Meta 分析。
本系统综述和网络荟萃分析旨在比较 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT、18F-NaF-PET/CT、MRI、对比增强 CT 和骨闪烁扫描诊断乳腺癌患者骨转移的准确性。根据 PRISMA-DTA 指南,我们回顾了评估 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT、18F-NaF-PET/CT、MRI、对比增强 CT 和骨闪烁成像用于诊断高分期原发性乳腺癌(III 期或 IV 期)或已知原发性乳腺癌并怀疑复发(分期或再分期)的骨转移的研究。在 2024 年 2 月之前,对 MEDLINE/PubMed、Scopus 和 Embase 进行了全面检索。纳入标准是使用这些成像方法的原创研究,不包括那些侧重于人工智能/机器学习、无转移的原发性乳腺癌、混合癌症类型、临床前研究和基于病灶的准确性的研究。优先考虑使用活检或随访作为参考标准的研究。使用 QUADAS-2 评估偏倚风险。筛选、偏倚评估和数据提取由两名研究人员独立完成,不一致之处由第三名研究人员解决。我们在荟萃分析中应用了双变量随机效应模型,并通过网络荟萃分析了不同方式的敏感性和特异性差异。共纳入 40 项研究,其中 29 项参与了荟萃分析。其中,13 项研究只调查了一种单一模式。2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT(敏感性:0.94,95% CI:0.89-0.97;特异性:0.98,95% CI:0.96-0.99)、MRI(0.94,0.82-0.98;0.93,0.87-0.96)和 18F-NaF-PET/CT(0.95,0.85-0.98;1,0.93-1)优于敏感性较低的 CE-CT (0.70,0.62-0.77;0.98,0.97-0.99)和骨闪烁扫描(0.83,0.75-0.88;0.96,0.87-0.99)。多模式研究的网络荟萃分析证实,2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT 和 MRI 在诊断骨转移方面的效果相当(灵敏度和特异性的估计差异分别为 0.01、-0.16 和 0.01):0.01, -0.16 - 0.18; -0.02, -0.15 - 0.12).除18F-NaF-PET/CT外,双变量随机效应模型和网络荟萃分析的结果对所有模式都是一致的。我们的结论是,2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT 和 MRI 诊断乳腺癌患者骨转移的准确性很高,而且不相上下。在灵敏度方面,两者均优于 CE-CT 和骨闪烁扫描。未来有必要根据同意的阈值进行多模态研究,以进一步探讨,尤其是 18F-NaF-PET/CT 在乳腺癌骨转移诊断中的潜在作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Seminars in nuclear medicine
Seminars in nuclear medicine 医学-核医学
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
14 days
期刊介绍: Seminars in Nuclear Medicine is the leading review journal in nuclear medicine. Each issue brings you expert reviews and commentary on a single topic as selected by the Editors. The journal contains extensive coverage of the field of nuclear medicine, including PET, SPECT, and other molecular imaging studies, and related imaging studies. Full-color illustrations are used throughout to highlight important findings. Seminars is included in PubMed/Medline, Thomson/ISI, and other major scientific indexes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信