Diagnostic performance of [18F]-FDG PET/MR in evaluating colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 35705874
- DOI: 10.1007/s00259-022-05871-0
Diagnostic performance of [18F]-FDG PET/MR in evaluating colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Purpose: To calculate the diagnostic performance of [18F]-FDG PET/MR in colorectal cancer (CRC).
Methods: This study was designed following the PRISMA-DTA guidelines. To be included, published original articles (until December 31, 2021) that met the following criteria were considered eligible: (1) evaluated [18F]-FDG PET/MR as the diagnostic method to detect CRC; (2) compared [18F]-FDG PET/MR with histopathology as the reference standard, or clinical/imaging composite follow-up when pathology was not available; (3) provided adequate crude data for meta-analysis. The diagnostic pooled measurements were calculated at patient and lesion levels. Regarding sub-group analysis, diagnostic measurements were calculated in "TNM staging," "T staging," "N staging," "M staging," and "liver metastasis" sub-groups. Additionally, we calculated the pooled performances in "rectal cancer: patient-level" and "rectal cancer: lesion-level" sub-groups. A hierarchical method was used to pool the performances. The bivariate model was conducted to find the summary points. Analyses were performed using STATA 16.
Results: A total of 1534 patients from 18 studies were entered. The pooled sensitivities in CRC lesion detection (tumor, lymph nodes, and metastases) were 0.94 (95%CI: 0.89-0.97) and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.82-0.98) at patient-level and lesion-level, respectively. The pooled specificities were 0.89 (95%CI: 0.84-0.93) and 0.95 (95%CI: 0.90-0.98) at patient-level and lesion-level, respectively. In sub-groups, the highest sensitivity (0.97, 95%CI: 0.86-0.99) and specificity (0.99, 95%CI: 0.84-1.00) were calculated for "M staging" and "rectal cancer: lesion-level," respectively. The lowest sensitivity (0.81, 95%CI: 0.65-0.91) and specificity (0.79, 95%CI: 0.52-0.93) were calculated for "N staging" and "T staging," respectively.
Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed an overall high diagnostic performance for [18F]-FDG PET/MR in detecting CRC lesions/metastases. Thus, this modality can play a significant role in several clinical scenarios in CRC staging and restaging. Specifically, one of the main strengths of this modality is ruling out the existence of CRC lesions/metastases. Finally, the overall diagnostic performance was not found to be affected in the post-treatment setting.
Keywords: Colorectal; Diagnosis; FDG; Meta-analysis; PET/MR.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) computed tomography (CT) for the detection of bone, lung, and lymph node metastases in rhabdomyosarcoma.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Nov 9;11(11):CD012325. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012325.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 34753195 Free PMC article.
-
[18F]-FDG PET in anal canal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023 Dec;51(1):258-277. doi: 10.1007/s00259-023-06393-z. Epub 2023 Aug 18. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023. PMID: 37592085
-
The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography in staging bladder cancer: a single-institution study and a systematic review with meta-analysis.World J Urol. 2016 Sep;34(9):1229-37. doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1772-z. Epub 2016 Feb 4. World J Urol. 2016. PMID: 26847182
-
Lymph nodes primary staging of colorectal cancer in 18F-FDG PET/MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Eur J Med Res. 2023 May 4;28(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01124-4. Eur J Med Res. 2023. PMID: 37143144 Free PMC article.
-
Diagnostic accuracy and impact on management of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015 Jan;42(1):152-63. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2930-4. Epub 2014 Oct 16. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015. PMID: 25319712
Cited by
-
Preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT in Patients with Presumed Localized Colon Cancer: A Prospective Study with Long-Term Follow-Up.Cancers (Basel). 2024 Jan 4;16(1):233. doi: 10.3390/cancers16010233. Cancers (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38201660 Free PMC article.
-
Editorial: Opportunities for PET imaging for the identification, staging, and monitoring of cancers.Front Oncol. 2023 Jan 24;13:1135928. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1135928. eCollection 2023. Front Oncol. 2023. PMID: 36761979 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Imaging in the era of risk-adapted treatment in colon cancer.Br J Radiol. 2024 Jun 18;97(1159):1214-1221. doi: 10.1093/bjr/tqae061. Br J Radiol. 2024. PMID: 38648743 Free PMC article. Review.
-
From Dukes-MAC Staging System to Molecular Classification: Evolving Concepts in Colorectal Cancer.Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Aug 21;23(16):9455. doi: 10.3390/ijms23169455. Int J Mol Sci. 2022. PMID: 36012726 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Personalised PET imaging in oncology: an umbrella review of meta-analyses to guide the appropriate radiopharmaceutical choice and indication.Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024 Dec;52(1):208-224. doi: 10.1007/s00259-024-06882-9. Epub 2024 Sep 11. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2024. PMID: 39256216 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Siegel RL, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2020. 70(3): 145–164.
-
- Granados-Romero JJ, et al. Colorectal cancer: a review. Int J Res Med Sci. 2017;5(11):4667–76.
-
- Keum N, Giovannucci E. Global burden of colorectal cancer: emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16(12):713–32. - PubMed
-
- Biller LH, Schrag D. Diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a review. JAMA. 2021;325(7):669–85. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous