Cargando…

Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis

The present study was designed to assess the additional value of 2-deoxy-2[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ([(18)F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the treatment response assessment of multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a meta-analysis of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yokoyama, Kota, Tsuchiya, Junichi, Tateishi, Ukihide
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33920809
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040706
_version_ 1783683625485598720
author Yokoyama, Kota
Tsuchiya, Junichi
Tateishi, Ukihide
author_facet Yokoyama, Kota
Tsuchiya, Junichi
Tateishi, Ukihide
author_sort Yokoyama, Kota
collection PubMed
description The present study was designed to assess the additional value of 2-deoxy-2[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ([(18)F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the treatment response assessment of multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies to compare the detectability of treatment response of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI in treated MM. We defined detecting a good therapeutic effect as positive, and residual disease as negative. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated the positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), and made summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) using hierarchical regression models. The pooled analysis included six studies that comprised 278 patients. The respective performance characteristics (95% confidence interval (CI)) of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI were as follows: sensitivity of 80% (56% to 94%) and 25% (19% to 31%); specificity of 58% (44% to 71%) and 83% (71% to 91%); diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 6.0 (3.0–12.0) and 1.7 (0.7–2.7); positive LR of 1.8 (1.3–2.4) and 1.4 (0.7–2.7); and negative LR of 0.33 (0.21–0.53) and 0.81 (0.62–1.1). In the respective SROC curves, the area under the curve was 0.77 (SE, 0.038) and 0.59 (SE, 0.079) and the Q* index was 0.71 and 0.57. Compared with MRI, [(18)F]FDG PET/CT had higher sensitivity and better DOR and SROC curves. Compared with MRI, [(18)F]FDG PET/CT had greater ability to detect the treatment assessment of MM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8071116
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80711162021-04-26 Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis Yokoyama, Kota Tsuchiya, Junichi Tateishi, Ukihide Diagnostics (Basel) Review The present study was designed to assess the additional value of 2-deoxy-2[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose ([(18)F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the treatment response assessment of multiple myeloma (MM). We performed a meta-analysis of all available studies to compare the detectability of treatment response of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI in treated MM. We defined detecting a good therapeutic effect as positive, and residual disease as negative. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated the positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR), and made summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) using hierarchical regression models. The pooled analysis included six studies that comprised 278 patients. The respective performance characteristics (95% confidence interval (CI)) of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI were as follows: sensitivity of 80% (56% to 94%) and 25% (19% to 31%); specificity of 58% (44% to 71%) and 83% (71% to 91%); diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 6.0 (3.0–12.0) and 1.7 (0.7–2.7); positive LR of 1.8 (1.3–2.4) and 1.4 (0.7–2.7); and negative LR of 0.33 (0.21–0.53) and 0.81 (0.62–1.1). In the respective SROC curves, the area under the curve was 0.77 (SE, 0.038) and 0.59 (SE, 0.079) and the Q* index was 0.71 and 0.57. Compared with MRI, [(18)F]FDG PET/CT had higher sensitivity and better DOR and SROC curves. Compared with MRI, [(18)F]FDG PET/CT had greater ability to detect the treatment assessment of MM. MDPI 2021-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8071116/ /pubmed/33920809 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040706 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Yokoyama, Kota
Tsuchiya, Junichi
Tateishi, Ukihide
Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis
title Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis
title_full Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis
title_short Comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT and MRI for Treatment Response Assessment in Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis
title_sort comparison of [(18)f]fdg pet/ct and mri for treatment response assessment in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8071116/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33920809
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11040706
work_keys_str_mv AT yokoyamakota comparisonof18ffdgpetctandmrifortreatmentresponseassessmentinmultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT tsuchiyajunichi comparisonof18ffdgpetctandmrifortreatmentresponseassessmentinmultiplemyelomaametaanalysis
AT tateishiukihide comparisonof18ffdgpetctandmrifortreatmentresponseassessmentinmultiplemyelomaametaanalysis