Oke Gerke, Mohammad Naghavi-Behzad, Sofie Tind Nygaard, Victoria Raha Sigaroudi, Marianne Vogsen, Werner Vach, Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.