Diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of colorectal focal FDG uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 156 Downloads
We aimed to explore the role of the diagnostic accuracy of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database, from the earliest available date of indexing through April 30, 2018, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves.
Across 8 studies (1451 patients), the pooled sensitivity for F-18 FDG PET/CT was 0.87 (95% CI 0.82–0.90) without heterogeneity (χ2 = 10.84, p = 0.37) and a pooled specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.89) with heterogeneity (χ2 = 130.1, p = 0.00). Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 5.2 (95% CI 3.6–7.4) and negative likelihood ratio (LR−) of 0.16 (95% CI 0.12–0.22). The pooled DOR was 32 (95% CI 20–51).
F-18 FDG PET/CT demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake. At present, the literature regarding the use of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake remains still limited; thus, further large multicenter studies would be necessary to substantiate the diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake.
KeywordsPositron emission tomography PET/CT Colonic uptake Incidental
This work was supported by a 2-Year Research Grant of Pusan National University.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Institutional review board approval was not required because we only performed data analysis based on the published studies.
Written informed consent was not required for this study because it is a meta-analysis based on the studies that have been published.
- 5.Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR (2007) Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 48:78–88Google Scholar