{"title":"与传统成像技术相比,F-18 FDG PET诊断心脏肿块的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Keunyoung Kim, W. Ko, Seong-Jang Kim","doi":"10.1259/bjr.20210263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThe present systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic performance of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (F-18FDG PET) and conventional imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging, echocardiography, and computed tomography, in characterising cardiac masses.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases for studies comparing the diagnostic accuracies of F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging in characterising cardiac masses, from inception of indexing to July 31, 2020, was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to assess study quality. Sensitivity and specificity across the studies were determined, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR + and LR-, respectively) were calculated, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOf six included studies (n = 212 patients), F-18 FDG PET demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.94) and a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.94). LR syntheses yielded an overall LR +of 7.9 (95% CI 4.3-14.6) and LR- of 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.22). The calculated pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 64 (95% CI 23-181). For conventional imaging, the pooled sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.81) and the pooled specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.88-0.98). LR syntheses yielded an overall LR +of 16.1 (95% CI 5.8-44.5) and LR- of 0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.46). The evaluated pooled DOR was 52 (95% CI 17-155).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nF-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging demonstrated comparable diagnostic accuracies for the characterisation of cardiac masses. Further large multicentre studies are, however, required to corroborate the diagnostic performances of F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging for the characterisation of cardiac masses.\n\n\nADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE\nNo previous studies have comprehensively analysed the diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT compared with conventional imaging techniques including echocardiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. According to the current study, F-18 FDG PET/CT yielded a pooled DOR of 64, whereas other conventional imaging techniques demonstrated a DOR of 52. As such, F-18 FDG PET/CT demonstrated sensitivity and specificity, with a high pooled DOR comparable with other conventional imaging modalities.","PeriodicalId":226783,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of radiology","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic test accuracies of F-18 FDG PET for characterization of cardiac masses compared to conventional imaging techniques: Systematic review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Keunyoung Kim, W. Ko, Seong-Jang Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1259/bjr.20210263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\nThe present systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic performance of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (F-18FDG PET) and conventional imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging, echocardiography, and computed tomography, in characterising cardiac masses.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nA literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases for studies comparing the diagnostic accuracies of F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging in characterising cardiac masses, from inception of indexing to July 31, 2020, was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to assess study quality. Sensitivity and specificity across the studies were determined, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR + and LR-, respectively) were calculated, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nOf six included studies (n = 212 patients), F-18 FDG PET demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.94) and a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.94). LR syntheses yielded an overall LR +of 7.9 (95% CI 4.3-14.6) and LR- of 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.22). The calculated pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 64 (95% CI 23-181). For conventional imaging, the pooled sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.81) and the pooled specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.88-0.98). LR syntheses yielded an overall LR +of 16.1 (95% CI 5.8-44.5) and LR- of 0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.46). The evaluated pooled DOR was 52 (95% CI 17-155).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nF-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging demonstrated comparable diagnostic accuracies for the characterisation of cardiac masses. Further large multicentre studies are, however, required to corroborate the diagnostic performances of F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging for the characterisation of cardiac masses.\\n\\n\\nADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE\\nNo previous studies have comprehensively analysed the diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT compared with conventional imaging techniques including echocardiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. According to the current study, F-18 FDG PET/CT yielded a pooled DOR of 64, whereas other conventional imaging techniques demonstrated a DOR of 52. As such, F-18 FDG PET/CT demonstrated sensitivity and specificity, with a high pooled DOR comparable with other conventional imaging modalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":226783,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The British journal of radiology\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The British journal of radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的本系统综述和荟萃分析比较F-18氟脱氧葡萄糖正电子发射断层扫描(F-18FDG PET)和常规成像(包括磁共振成像、超声心动图和计算机断层扫描)在诊断心脏肿块方面的表现。方法对PubMed、Cochrane和EMBASE数据库进行文献检索,比较F-18 FDG PET和常规成像在心脏肿块特征方面的诊断准确性,从索引开始到2020年7月31日。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具评估研究质量。确定各研究的敏感性和特异性,计算阳性和阴性似然比(分别为LR +和LR-),并构建总体受试者工作特征曲线。结果在纳入的6项研究中(n = 212例患者),F-18 FDG PET的综合敏感性为0.89(95%可信区间[CI] 0.81-0.94),综合特异性为0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.94)。LR合成的总体LR +为7.9 (95% CI 4.3-14.6), LR-为0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.22)。计算的合并诊断优势比(DOR)为64 (95% CI 23-181)。对于常规影像学,合并敏感性为0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.81),合并特异性为0.96 (95% CI 0.88-0.98)。LR合成的总LR +为16.1 (95% CI 5.8-44.5), LR-为0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.46)。评估的合并DOR为52 (95% CI 17-155)。结论f -18 FDG PET与常规影像学对心脏肿块的诊断准确性相当。然而,需要进一步的大型多中心研究来证实F-18 FDG PET和常规成像对心脏肿块特征的诊断性能。之前的研究已经全面分析了F-18 FDG PET/CT与常规成像技术(包括超声心动图、计算机断层扫描和磁共振成像)的诊断性能。根据目前的研究,F-18 FDG PET/CT的综合DOR为64,而其他传统成像技术的DOR为52。因此,F-18 FDG PET/CT表现出敏感性和特异性,与其他传统成像方式相比,DOR具有较高的综合DOR。
Diagnostic test accuracies of F-18 FDG PET for characterization of cardiac masses compared to conventional imaging techniques: Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
The present systematic review and meta-analysis compared the diagnostic performance of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (F-18FDG PET) and conventional imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging, echocardiography, and computed tomography, in characterising cardiac masses.
METHODS
A literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases for studies comparing the diagnostic accuracies of F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging in characterising cardiac masses, from inception of indexing to July 31, 2020, was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to assess study quality. Sensitivity and specificity across the studies were determined, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR + and LR-, respectively) were calculated, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed.
RESULTS
Of six included studies (n = 212 patients), F-18 FDG PET demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.94) and a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.94). LR syntheses yielded an overall LR +of 7.9 (95% CI 4.3-14.6) and LR- of 0.12 (95% CI 0.07-0.22). The calculated pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 64 (95% CI 23-181). For conventional imaging, the pooled sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.81) and the pooled specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.88-0.98). LR syntheses yielded an overall LR +of 16.1 (95% CI 5.8-44.5) and LR- of 0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.46). The evaluated pooled DOR was 52 (95% CI 17-155).
CONCLUSION
F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging demonstrated comparable diagnostic accuracies for the characterisation of cardiac masses. Further large multicentre studies are, however, required to corroborate the diagnostic performances of F-18 FDG PET and conventional imaging for the characterisation of cardiac masses.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
No previous studies have comprehensively analysed the diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT compared with conventional imaging techniques including echocardiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. According to the current study, F-18 FDG PET/CT yielded a pooled DOR of 64, whereas other conventional imaging techniques demonstrated a DOR of 52. As such, F-18 FDG PET/CT demonstrated sensitivity and specificity, with a high pooled DOR comparable with other conventional imaging modalities.