Meta-analysis of 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CT, and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in diagnostic efficacy of prostate Cancer

Cancer Imaging

Research Article

Jun Guo¹  Shengjing Liu¹  Bin Yan¹  Yingjun Deng¹  Ziwei Zhao¹  Guanchao Du¹  Wenxiao Yu²  Ming Zhao³  Ning Sun⁴ 

[1] Department of Andrology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No.1, R. Xiyuangcaochang, District Haidian, 100091, Beijing, China;Department of Andrology, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No.1, R. Xiyuangcaochang, District Haidian, 100091, Beijing, China;Post-doctoral Research Station, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No.1, R. Xiyuangcaochang, District Haidian, 100091, Beijing, China;Graduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, 11 North Third Ring East Road, Chaoyang, Beijing, China;Post-doctoral Research Station, Xiyuan Hospital of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, No.1, R. Xiyuangcaochang, District Haidian, 100091, Beijing, China;

关键词: Prostate cancer;    Prostate-specific membrane antigen;    Diagnosis;    PET/CT;    Radioisotopes;    meta-analysis;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s40644-023-00599-y

 received in 2023-04-28, accepted in 2023-08-07,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

ObjectiveTo compare 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CT and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in the diagnostic value of prostate cancer.MethodThe Chinese and foreign databases, such as Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, etc., were systematically searched within the period from the establishment of the database to June 1, 2022. Clinical studies related to the diagnosis of prostate cancer by methods such as 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CTCT, 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, were researched. Two (2) investigators independently screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias when these data were included in the studies with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Review Manager5.4, Stata 14.0, and Meta-disc 1.4 software were used for meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different methods in the diagnose of prostate cancer. ResultsTwenty-seven (27) studies, including 2891 subjects were included in our study. Meta-analysis results showed that the pooled sensitivities of 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT, 18 F-FDG PET/CT, and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT were 0.912 (95%CI: 0.883–0.936), 0.748 (95%CI: 0.698–0.795), and 0.916 (95%CI: 0.896–0.934), respectively; the pooled specification were 0.878 (0.844–0.907), 0.639 (95%CI: 0.589–0.687), and 0.734 (95%CI: 0.685–0.779), respectively; the positive likelihood ratios were 6.335 (95%CI: 4.288–9.357), 2.282 (95%CI: 1.497–3.477), and 3.593 (95%CI: 2.986–4.323), respectively; the negative likelihood ratios were 0.878 (95%CI: 0.844–0.907), 0.374 (95%CI: 0.280–0.499), and 0.110 (95%CI: 0.083–0.144), respectively; the diagnostic odds ratios were 65.125 (95%CI: 34.059–124.53), 7.094 (95%CI: 4.091–12.301), and 29.722 (95%CI: 20.141–43.863), respectively; the positive posterior probability was 64%, 38%, and 62%, respectively; the area under the SPOC curve was 0.95 (95%CI: 0.93–0.97), 0.81 (95%CI: 0.78–0.84), and 0.96 (95%CI: 0.92–0.98), respectively. The funnel plots indicated that there was no significant publication bias in the included literatures. ConclusionThe current evidences showed that 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT had higher diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer compared with 18 F-FDG PET/CT, among which 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was slightly higher in the sensitivity of the diagnosis of prostate cancer, while 18 F-PSMA-1007 PET/CT may have higher efficacy in specificity and confirmed positive rate. Due to the limitations of the quality of the included samples and literatures, the above conclusions should be further validated by expanding the sample size and improving the quality.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© International Cancer Imaging Society (ICIS) 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 4

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq18.gif

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq15.gif

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq13.gif

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq11.gif

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq9.gif

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq7.gif

13570_2023_282_Article_IEq4.gif

Fig. 5