Ankush Jajodia, Bipin Nanda, Mostafa Alabousi, Ani Orchanian-Cheff, Satheesh Krishna Jeyaraj, Michael Patlas
{"title":"FDG PET-CT与CT治疗后胰腺腺癌(PAC)复发:比较诊断测试准确性系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ankush Jajodia, Bipin Nanda, Mostafa Alabousi, Ani Orchanian-Cheff, Satheesh Krishna Jeyaraj, Michael Patlas","doi":"10.1097/MPA.0000000000002498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To perform a systematic review comparing diagnostic test accuracy of FDG PET-CT versus CT for assessing recurrence in post-treatment pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), and Web of Science searched until February 2024 for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies assessing PET-CT versus CT in post-treated subjects with PAC to evaluate diagnostic accuracy for recurrence. The reference standard was histopathology when available or clinical follow-up. Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB), and applicability assessment were performed by two authors. QUADAS-C was used for ROB assessment. Bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis, and meta-regression were performed for test comparison with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 5345 citations retrieved, nine articles met all inclusion criteria, with 400 PAC patients who had 320 recurrences included. Three studies were considered at low risk of bias, while the remaining six studies were at high risk for bias. The sensitivity/specificity (95%CI) and AUC of PET-CT was 89% (83-92%)/83% (73-90%) and 0.927 and for CT was 72% (64-79%)/76% (64-85%) and 0.803. A meta-regression model demonstrated a higher sensitivity for PET-CT than CT alone (P<0.001), with no significant difference in specificity (P=0.243). Risk of bias had no significant impact on CT or PET-CT diagnostic accuracy (P=0.072-0.775).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PET-CT exhibited greater sensitivity compared to CT alone, with no significant variance in specificity between the two modalities, for recurrence evaluation in PAC.</p>","PeriodicalId":19733,"journal":{"name":"Pancreas","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"FDG PET-CT vs. CT for Recurrence in Post-treatment Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (PAC): Comparative Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ankush Jajodia, Bipin Nanda, Mostafa Alabousi, Ani Orchanian-Cheff, Satheesh Krishna Jeyaraj, Michael Patlas\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MPA.0000000000002498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To perform a systematic review comparing diagnostic test accuracy of FDG PET-CT versus CT for assessing recurrence in post-treatment pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), and Web of Science searched until February 2024 for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies assessing PET-CT versus CT in post-treated subjects with PAC to evaluate diagnostic accuracy for recurrence. The reference standard was histopathology when available or clinical follow-up. Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB), and applicability assessment were performed by two authors. QUADAS-C was used for ROB assessment. Bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis, and meta-regression were performed for test comparison with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 5345 citations retrieved, nine articles met all inclusion criteria, with 400 PAC patients who had 320 recurrences included. Three studies were considered at low risk of bias, while the remaining six studies were at high risk for bias. The sensitivity/specificity (95%CI) and AUC of PET-CT was 89% (83-92%)/83% (73-90%) and 0.927 and for CT was 72% (64-79%)/76% (64-85%) and 0.803. A meta-regression model demonstrated a higher sensitivity for PET-CT than CT alone (P<0.001), with no significant difference in specificity (P=0.243). Risk of bias had no significant impact on CT or PET-CT diagnostic accuracy (P=0.072-0.775).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PET-CT exhibited greater sensitivity compared to CT alone, with no significant variance in specificity between the two modalities, for recurrence evaluation in PAC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pancreas\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pancreas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000002498\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pancreas","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000002498","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:对FDG PET-CT与CT在评估治疗后胰腺腺癌(PAC)复发诊断中的准确性进行系统评价。方法:Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane系统评价数据库(Ovid), Cochrane中央对照试验注册库(Ovid)和Web of Science检索到2024年2月,比较PET-CT与CT在治疗后PAC患者中的诊断准确性,以评估复发的诊断准确性。参考标准为组织病理学检查或临床随访。数据提取、偏倚风险(ROB)和适用性评估由两位作者完成。采用QUADAS-C进行ROB评估。双变量随机效应模型荟萃分析和荟萃回归以95%置信区间(95% ci)进行检验比较。结果:在检索到的5345篇引文中,9篇文章符合所有纳入标准,包括400例PAC患者,其中320例复发。3项研究被认为具有低偏倚风险,而其余6项研究具有高偏倚风险。PET-CT的敏感性/特异性(95%CI)和AUC分别为89%(83-92%)/83%(73-90%)和0.927,CT的敏感性/特异性(95%CI)和AUC分别为72%(64-79%)/76%(64-85%)和0.803。荟萃回归模型显示PET-CT比单独CT具有更高的敏感性(p结论:PET-CT比单独CT具有更高的敏感性,两种方式之间的特异性无显著差异,用于PAC复发评估。
FDG PET-CT vs. CT for Recurrence in Post-treatment Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (PAC): Comparative Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Objectives: To perform a systematic review comparing diagnostic test accuracy of FDG PET-CT versus CT for assessing recurrence in post-treatment pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC).
Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), and Web of Science searched until February 2024 for comparative diagnostic accuracy studies assessing PET-CT versus CT in post-treated subjects with PAC to evaluate diagnostic accuracy for recurrence. The reference standard was histopathology when available or clinical follow-up. Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB), and applicability assessment were performed by two authors. QUADAS-C was used for ROB assessment. Bivariate random-effects model meta-analysis, and meta-regression were performed for test comparison with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).
Results: Of 5345 citations retrieved, nine articles met all inclusion criteria, with 400 PAC patients who had 320 recurrences included. Three studies were considered at low risk of bias, while the remaining six studies were at high risk for bias. The sensitivity/specificity (95%CI) and AUC of PET-CT was 89% (83-92%)/83% (73-90%) and 0.927 and for CT was 72% (64-79%)/76% (64-85%) and 0.803. A meta-regression model demonstrated a higher sensitivity for PET-CT than CT alone (P<0.001), with no significant difference in specificity (P=0.243). Risk of bias had no significant impact on CT or PET-CT diagnostic accuracy (P=0.072-0.775).
Conclusions: PET-CT exhibited greater sensitivity compared to CT alone, with no significant variance in specificity between the two modalities, for recurrence evaluation in PAC.
期刊介绍:
Pancreas provides a central forum for communication of original works involving both basic and clinical research on the exocrine and endocrine pancreas and their interrelationships and consequences in disease states. This multidisciplinary, international journal covers the whole spectrum of basic sciences, etiology, prevention, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and surgical and medical management of pancreatic diseases, including cancer.