Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2003 May;44(5):717-24.

18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis and grading of soft-tissue sarcoma: a meta-analysis

Affiliations
  • PMID: 12732672
Free article
Meta-Analysis

18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis and grading of soft-tissue sarcoma: a meta-analysis

John P A Ioannidis et al. J Nucl Med. 2003 May.
Free article

Abstract

PET using (18)F-FDG is increasingly used for the diagnosis and grading of tumors. Several studies have been performed that evaluate the diagnostic and grading performance of (18)F-FDG PET for soft-tissue sarcoma, but each study has had a limited sample size. Therefore, we undertook a comprehensive meta-analysis of the evidence.

Methods: Relevant studies were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE. Diagnostic and grading performance were evaluated for qualitative visualization; standard uptake value (SUV, cutoffs of 2.0 and 3.0); and metabolic rate of glucose (MRG, cutoff of 6.0 micro mol/100 g/min). Quantitative data synthesis included independent weighting of sensitivity and specificity, construction of summary receiver operating characteristic curves, and pooled analyses.

Results: The meta-analysis included 15 studies with 441 soft-tissue lesions (227 malignant, 214 benign). For diagnosis of malignant versus benign lesions, typical pairs of sensitivity and specificity estimates from the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 92% and 73% for qualitative visualization; 87% and 79% for SUV 2.0; 70% and 87% for SUV 3.0; and 74% and 73% for MRG 6.0. Diagnostic performance was similar for primary and recurrent lesions. By qualitative interpretation, (18)F-FDG was positive in all intermediate/high-grade tumors (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.3%-100%), 74.4% (95% CI, 58.6%-85.9%) of low-grade tumors, and 39.3% (95% CI, 29.1%-50.3%) of benign lesions (including 11 of 12 inflammatory lesions). Using an SUV cutoff of 2.0, respective rates were 89.4% (95% CI, 79.4%-95.6%), 33.1% (95% CI, 15.6%-55.3%), and 19.1% (95% CI, 10.6%-30.5%). Limited data on comparisons with MRI and CT showed no differences against (18)F-FDG PET in diagnosing recurrent and metastatic disease.

Conclusion: (18)F-FDG PET has very good discriminating ability in the evaluation of both primary and recurrent soft-tissue lesions. (18)F-FDG PET may be helpful in tumor grading but offers inadequate discrimination between low-grade tumors and benign lesions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources