4.3 Review

Diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT for prediction of KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 1703-1711

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-018-01891-3

关键词

F-18 FDG; Colon cancer; Rectal cancer; PET/CT; KRAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveThe purpose of the current study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the prediction of v-Ki-ras-2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutation in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsThe PubMed and EMBASE database, from the earliest available date of indexing through April 30, 2018, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT for prediction of KRAS mutation in CRC patients.ResultsAcross 9 studies (804 patients), the pooled sensitivity for F-18 FDG PET/CT was 0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.73) without heterogeneity (I-2=34.1, p=0.14) and a pooled specificity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.72) without heterogeneity (I-2=1.63, p=0.42). Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 2.0 (95% CI 1.7-2.4) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.5 (95% CI 0.41-0.61). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 4 (95% CI 3-6). Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve indicates that the areas under the curve were 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73).ConclusionThe current meta-analysis showed the low sensitivity and specificity of F-18 FDG PET/CT for prediction of KRAS mutation in CRC patients. The DOR was very low and the likelihood ratio scatter-gram indicated that F-18 FDG PET/CT might not be useful for prediction of KRAS mutation and not for its exclusion. Therefore, cautious application and interpretation should be paid to the F-18 FDG PET/CT for prediction of KRAS mutation in CRC patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据