用于非小细胞肺癌 TNM 分期的[18F] FDG PET/MRI 和 [18F] FDG PET/CT 的正面比较:系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Zhiwei Li, Dianhan Sun, Anying Li, Yusheng Shu
{"title":"用于非小细胞肺癌 TNM 分期的[18F] FDG PET/MRI 和 [18F] FDG PET/CT 的正面比较:系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Zhiwei Li, Dianhan Sun, Anying Li, Yusheng Shu","doi":"10.1007/s40336-024-00622-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of [<sup>18</sup>F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/ magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/ computed tomography (CT) in tumor–node–metastasis staging of non-small-cell lung cancer.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines and retrieved all accessible studies from the Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases up to December 2022. Only studies in which both [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI and [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT were conducted on each individual patient were included. Two researchers independently extracted data on study characteristics and assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 539 patients in eight studies were included in this analysis. For T staging, the pooled sensitivity of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81–0.96) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.89–1.00), with corresponding values for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78–0.94) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.87–0.99), respectively. For N staging, the pooled sensitivity of [<sup>18</sup>F] FDG PET/CT was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.63–0.76), the specificity of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.90 (standard error [SE] = 0.06). The corresponding values for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65–0.77), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87–0.94) and 0.88 (SE = 0.06), respectively. For M staging, the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62–0.91), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.97), and AUC was 0.96 (SE = 0.03) for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT. The corresponding values were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70–0.91), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93–0.98), and 0.94 (SE = 0.03), respectively, for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>According to the pooled data, [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT performed slightly better in terms of T staging than [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI. In contrast, with regard to N staging and M staging the staging accuracy of both imaging techniques was comparable. To ensure that results are reliable, more high-level investigations will be required to assess these imaging modalities, in addition to optimized PET/MRI procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Head-to-head comparison of [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F] FDG PET/CT for TNM staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Zhiwei Li, Dianhan Sun, Anying Li, Yusheng Shu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40336-024-00622-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of [<sup>18</sup>F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/ magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/ computed tomography (CT) in tumor–node–metastasis staging of non-small-cell lung cancer.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines and retrieved all accessible studies from the Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases up to December 2022. Only studies in which both [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI and [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT were conducted on each individual patient were included. Two researchers independently extracted data on study characteristics and assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>A total of 539 patients in eight studies were included in this analysis. For T staging, the pooled sensitivity of [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81–0.96) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.89–1.00), with corresponding values for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78–0.94) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.87–0.99), respectively. For N staging, the pooled sensitivity of [<sup>18</sup>F] FDG PET/CT was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.63–0.76), the specificity of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.90 (standard error [SE] = 0.06). The corresponding values for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65–0.77), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87–0.94) and 0.88 (SE = 0.06), respectively. For M staging, the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62–0.91), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.97), and AUC was 0.96 (SE = 0.03) for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT. The corresponding values were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70–0.91), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93–0.98), and 0.94 (SE = 0.03), respectively, for [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>According to the pooled data, [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT performed slightly better in terms of T staging than [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/MRI. In contrast, with regard to N staging and M staging the staging accuracy of both imaging techniques was comparable. To ensure that results are reliable, more high-level investigations will be required to assess these imaging modalities, in addition to optimized PET/MRI procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00622-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00622-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本研究旨在比较[18F]氟脱氧葡萄糖(FDG)正电子发射断层扫描(PET)/磁共振成像(MRI)和[18F]FDG PET/计算机断层扫描(CT)在非小细胞肺癌肿瘤-结节-转移分期中的诊断准确性。方法该研究遵循诊断测试准确性系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA-DTA)指南,从 Embase、PubMed 和 Web of Science 数据库中检索了截至 2022 年 12 月的所有可访问研究。只有同时对每位患者进行[18F]FDG PET/MRI和[18F]FDG PET/CT检查的研究才被纳入。两名研究人员独立提取研究特征数据,并使用诊断准确性研究质量评估(QUADAS-2)工具评估方法学质量。对于T分期,[18F]FDG PET/CT的汇总敏感性为0.90(95%置信区间[CI]:0.81-0.96),特异性为0.97(95% CI:0.89-1.00),[18F]FDG PET/MRI的相应值分别为0.88(95% CI:0.78-0.94)和0.95(95% CI:0.87-0.99)。对于 N 分期,[18F] FDG PET/CT 的汇总敏感性为 0.70(95% CI:0.63-0.76),特异性为 0.92(95% CI:0.88-0.95),曲线下面积(AUC)为 0.90(标准误差 [SE] = 0.06)。[18F]FDG PET/MRI的相应值分别为0.71(95% CI:0.65-0.77)、0.91(95% CI:0.87-0.94)和0.88(SE = 0.06)。对于 M 分期,[18F]FDG PET/CT 的汇总敏感性为 0.79(95% CI:0.62-0.91),特异性为 0.94(95% CI:0.90-0.97),AUC 为 0.96(SE = 0.03)。结论根据汇总数据,[18F]FDG PET/CT 在 T 分期方面的表现略好于[18F]FDG PET/MRI。相比之下,两种成像技术在N分期和M分期方面的准确性相当。为确保结果的可靠性,除了优化 PET/MRI 程序外,还需要进行更高级别的研究来评估这些成像模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Head-to-head comparison of [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F] FDG PET/CT for TNM staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Head-to-head comparison of [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F] FDG PET/CT for TNM staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/ magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and [18F]FDG PET/ computed tomography (CT) in tumor–node–metastasis staging of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Methods

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines and retrieved all accessible studies from the Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases up to December 2022. Only studies in which both [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT were conducted on each individual patient were included. Two researchers independently extracted data on study characteristics and assessed the methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

Results

A total of 539 patients in eight studies were included in this analysis. For T staging, the pooled sensitivity of [18F]FDG PET/CT was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81–0.96) and specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.89–1.00), with corresponding values for [18F]FDG PET/MRI of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.78–0.94) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.87–0.99), respectively. For N staging, the pooled sensitivity of [18F] FDG PET/CT was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.63–0.76), the specificity of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95), and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.90 (standard error [SE] = 0.06). The corresponding values for [18F]FDG PET/MRI were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65–0.77), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87–0.94) and 0.88 (SE = 0.06), respectively. For M staging, the pooled sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.62–0.91), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90–0.97), and AUC was 0.96 (SE = 0.03) for [18F]FDG PET/CT. The corresponding values were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70–0.91), 0.96 (95% CI: 0.93–0.98), and 0.94 (SE = 0.03), respectively, for [18F]FDG PET/MRI.

Conclusions

According to the pooled data, [18F]FDG PET/CT performed slightly better in terms of T staging than [18F]FDG PET/MRI. In contrast, with regard to N staging and M staging the staging accuracy of both imaging techniques was comparable. To ensure that results are reliable, more high-level investigations will be required to assess these imaging modalities, in addition to optimized PET/MRI procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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