期刊文献+

^(18)F-FDOPA与^(18)F-FDG PET/CT诊断脑肿瘤的系统评价 被引量:4

A systematic comparison of ^(18)F-FDOPA PET/CT with ^(18)F-FDG PET/CT for diagnosis of brain tumors
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的系统评价18F-FDOPA与18F-FDG PET/CT显像在脑肿瘤诊断中的临床价值。方法采用Meta分析与直接比较方法。使用计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库、中文科技期刊数据库、万方数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、Pub Med、Embase、The Cochrane Library,从建库至2016年10月,搜索直接比较18F-FDOPA与18F-FDG PET/CT诊断脑肿瘤的诊断性试验。用Meta-Disc1.4软件进行分析,计算两种不同显像剂的合并敏感度(sensitivity,SEN)、合并特异度(specificity,SPE)、合并阳性似然比(positive likelihood ratio,+LR)、合并阴性似然比(negative likelihood ratio,-LR)、诊断优势比(diagnostic odds ratio,DOR),并绘制综合受试者工作特征曲线计算曲线下面积(area under curve,AUC)与Q*值。结果最终共纳入4篇文章,Meta分析结果显示,18F-FDOPA PET/CT对脑肿瘤诊断的合并SEN为0.97(95%CI=0.90~1.00),SPE为0.67(95%CI=0.45~0.84),+LR为2.31(95%CI=1.40~3.81),-LR为0.07(95%CI=0.02~0.24),DOR为39.72(95%CI=8.94~176.48),AUC为0.9725,Q*为0.9239。18F-FDG PET/CT对脑肿瘤诊断的合并SEN为0.51(95%CI=0.39~0.63),SPE为0.75(95%CI=0.53~0.90,+LR为1.59(95%CI=0.70~3.61),-LR为0.63(95%CI=0.47~0.86),DOR为2.55(95%CI=0.82~7.92),AUC为0.5848,Q*为0.5638。结论18F-FDOPA PET/CT显像诊断脑肿瘤的敏感性比18F-FDG高,对脑肿瘤具有良好的诊断价值,可作为脑肿瘤诊断的方法之一。 Objective To compare the diagnostic value of ^18F-FDOPA and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan in patients with brain tumors by Meta analysis.Methods Data on diagnostic experiments related to the diagnostic value of ^18F-FDOPA and ^18F-FDG PET/CT scan for brain tumors was retrieved from CNKI, CSJD, WanFang Database, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library by October 2016. The diagnostic value of ^18F-FDOPA and ^18F-FDG PET/CT scan for brain tumors was compared. Meta-DiSc 1.4 software was used to analyze the pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE),positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) under curve (AUC) the two different imaging agents.Results A total of four studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the results of 18F-FDOPA in diagnosis of brain tumors, the pooled SEN was 0.97(95%CI=0.90-1.00), SPE 0.67(95%CI=0.45-0.84),2.31(95%CI=1.40-3.81),0.07(95%CI=0.02-0.24), DOR 39.72(95%CI=8.94-176.48), SROC AUC 0.9725,and Q* value. According to the diagnostic results of 18F-FD, the pooled SEN was 0.51(95%CI=0.39-0.63),0.75(95%CI=0.53-0.90),2.31(95%CI=0.70-3.61),0.07(95%CI=0.47-0.86),DOR 2.55(95%CI=0.82-7.92), SROC AUC 0.5848,and Q* value was 0.5638.Conclusions 18F-FDOPA PET/CT imaging is more sensitive than 18F-FDG in the diagnosis of brain tumors.18F-FDOPA is of high diagnostic value for brain tumors and can be used as a reliable diagnostic method of brain tumors.
出处 《武警医学》 CAS 2017年第6期573-577,共5页 Medical Journal of the Chinese People's Armed Police Force
基金 天津市自然科学基金(13JCYBJC22000) 武警后勤学院附属医院种子基金(FYQ201601)
关键词 脑肿瘤 PET/CT ^18F-FDOPA ^18F-FDG brain tumor PET/CT ^18F-FDOPA ^18F-FDG
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献34

  • 1屈婉莹,郑建国,林嘉滨.PET/CT临床应用优化选择的思考[J].中华核医学杂志,2006,26(6):327-329. 被引量:16
  • 2Ambrosini V, Nanni C, Rubello D,et al. 18 F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of carcinoma of unknown primary origin[J]. Radiol Med, 2006,111:1146-1155.
  • 3Kaya A O, Coskun U, Unlu M,et al. Whole body 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging in the detection of primary tumors in patients with a metastatic carcinoma of unknown origin[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2008, 9:683-686.
  • 4Fencl P, Belohlavek O, Skopalova M,et al. Prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of [18F] FDG-PET/CT in 190 patients with carcinoma of unknown primary[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2007, 34:1783-1792.
  • 5Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUA- DAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accu- racy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3: 25.
  • 6Devill6 WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Medical Re- search Methodology, 2002, 2: 9.
  • 7Littenberg B, Moses LE, Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multi- ple conflicting reports. Medical Decision Making, 1993, 13: 313-321.
  • 8Midgette AS, Stukel TA, Littenberg B. A meta-analytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances. Medical Decision Mak- ing, 1993, 13: 253-257.
  • 9Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-anal- yses evaluating diagnostic tests. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1994, 120: 667-676.
  • 10Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117: 167.

共引文献41

同被引文献17

引证文献4

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部