Systematic review & meta-analysis of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and bone scan in the diagnosis of prostate lesions

被引:4
|
作者
Wang, Jiafu [1 ]
Han, Yue [2 ]
Lin, Lin [1 ]
Zhang, Linhan [1 ]
Li, Jin [3 ]
Gao, Huiqi [1 ]
Fu, Peng [1 ]
机构
[1] Harbin Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Nucl Med, Harbin, Peoples R China
[2] Harbin Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Ultrasound, Harbin, Peoples R China
[3] Harbin Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Integrat Med Oncol, Harbin, Peoples R China
关键词
Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT); bone scan; prostate disease; diagnostic value; meta-analysis; ANTIGEN PET/COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; GA-68-PSMA PET/CT; CARCINOMA; SCINTIGRAPHY; METASTASES; INDEX;
D O I
10.21037/tau-21-912
中图分类号
R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: To date, the results of studies into the effectiveness of positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (CT) and bone scan (BS) in the diagnosis of malignant prostate lesions have been inconsistent, and the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods cannot be accurately judged. Methods: Articles were retrieved from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Wan Fang Medical Network, PubMed, Excerpta Medica data BASE (EMBASE), Medline, and Cochrane database. The keywords used in the search were: Ga-68-prostate specific membrane antibody (Ga-68-PSMA), PET/CT, prostate lesions, prostate adenocarcinoma, bone metastasis, and BS. Results: Ultimately, 3 publications were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. A total of 215 patients were considered in the 3 articles that met the inclusion criteria. All of the included articles were small sample studies, with sample sizes ranging from 28 to 113 cases. In this study, from the 3 randomized controlled trials, only 2 (66.67%) randomized controls described the correct randomized allocation method, and only 1 (33.33%) described the hidden allocation scheme in detail. The highest sensitivity for Ga-68-PSMA PET/ CT was 0.96, with 95% CI: 0.87, 1.00, and the highest specificity was 1.00, with 95% CI: 0.96, 1.00. The highest sensitivity and specificity of BS were 0.92 with 95% CI: 0.81, 0.98 and 0.96 with 95% CI: 0.78, 1.00, respectively. The results of meta-analysis of Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT diagnosis with confirmation by surgical and histopathological examination showed that the area under the summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve (AUC) =0.826 and standard error (SE) (AUC) =0.0425. The results of meta-analysis of BS diagnosis with confirmation by surgical and histopathological examination showed that the area under the SROC curve (AUC) =0.714 and SE (AUC) =0.0034. Discussion: The meta-analysis showed that Ga-68-PSMA PET/CT has clear advantages over BS in the diagnosis of bone metastases of malignant prostate tumors, and could improve the diagnostic accuracy of bone metastases.
引用
收藏
页码:4231 / 4240
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Positron emission tomography alone, positron emission tomography-computed tomography and computed tomography in diagnosing recurrent cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Xiao, Yi
    Wei, Jia
    Zhang, Yicheng
    Xiong, Weining
    ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2014, 10 (02) : 222 - 231
  • [2] Positron emission tomography/computed tomography is superior to bone scan in the diagnosis of bone metastases of malignant prostate tumors
    Sun, Yue
    Wu, Qin
    Shen, Lixuan
    Wu, Jiangfeng
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2022, 11 (06) : 902 - 903
  • [3] Performance of Positron Emission Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Using Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose for the Diagnosis, Staging, and Recurrence Assessment of Bone Sarcoma A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Liu, Fanxiao
    Zhang, Qingyu
    Zhu, Dezhi
    Liu, Fengxia
    Li, Zhenfeng
    Li, Jianmin
    Wang, Bomin
    Zhou, Dongsheng
    Dong, Jinlei
    MEDICINE, 2015, 94 (36)
  • [4] Positron Emission Tomography/Computer Tomography in the Diagnosis of Inflammation of Unknown Origin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Easton, K.
    Hallam, G.
    Lee, Y.
    Saluja, S.
    Erfani, T.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2024, 51 : S658 - S658
  • [5] Safety and Effectiveness of F-18 Fluoroestradiol Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Mo, Jin A.
    JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2021, 36 (42)
  • [6] A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography or positron emission tomography/computed tomography for detection of infected prosthetic vascular grafts
    Kim, Seong-Jang
    Lee, Sang-Woo
    Jeong, Shin Young
    Pak, Kyoungjune
    Kim, Keunyoung
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2019, 70 (01) : 307 - 313
  • [7] Value of Positron Emission Tomography Scan in Stage III Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Rivera, A. M. Rodriguez
    Ramjaun, A.
    Alabbas, H.
    Meguerditchian, A.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 20 : S91 - S91
  • [8] Value of positron emission tomography scan in stage III cutaneous melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Rivera, Angel M. Rodriguez
    Alabbas, Haytham
    Ramjaun, Aliya
    Meguerditchian, Ari-Nareg
    SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD, 2014, 23 (01): : 11 - 16
  • [9] Positron Emission Tomography and Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography Imaging in the Diagnosis of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Juneau, Daniel
    Golfam, Mohammad
    Hazra, Samir
    Zuckier, Lionel S.
    Garas, Shady
    Redpath, Calum
    Bernick, Jordan
    Leung, Eugene
    Chih, Sharon
    Wells, George
    Beanlands, Rob S. B.
    Chow, Benjamin J. W.
    CIRCULATION-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2017, 10 (04)
  • [10] Accuracy of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis and Restaging for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer A Meta-Analysis
    Zhao Limei
    Chen Yong
    Xu Yan
    Tang Shuai
    Xie Jiangyan
    Liang Zhiqing
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2013, 23 (04) : 598 - 607