Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Yu Yu Lu, Jin Hua Chen, Ji An Liang, Hsin Yi Wang, Cheng Chieh Lin, Wan Yu Lin, Chia Hung Kao

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

108 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the current study was to conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer. Materials and methods: The authors conducted a systematic MEDLINE search of articles published between January 2000 and December 2010. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study. We conducted a meta-analysis of pooled sensitivity and specificity in detecting primary and metastatic lesions of bladder cancer. Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT for primary lesion detection of bladder cancer were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.70-0.99) and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.74-1.00), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET or PET/CT for staging or restaging (metastatic lesions) of bladder cancer were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.72-0.89) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81-0.95), respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET or PET/CT is good in metastatic lesions of urinary bladder cancer. Due to the small number of patients and limited number of studies analyzed, the diagnostic capability of FDG PET or PET/CT in detection of primary bladder wall lesions could not be assessed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2411-2416
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Radiology
Volume81
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2012
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • FDG PET
  • Meta-analysis
  • PET/CT
  • Systemic review
  • Urinary bladder cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this