4.3 Article

Diagnostic performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of solitary pulmonary nodule: a meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 S779-S789

出版社

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2017.12.126

关键词

Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F-18-FDG-PET/CT); solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs); lung cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In the setting of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs), fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F-18-FDG-PET/CT) is considered a useful non-invasive diagnostic tool though false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) results affects accuracy due to different conditions, such as inflammatory diseases or low-uptake neoplasms. Aim of this study is to evaluate overall diagnostic performance of F-18-FDG-PET/CT for malignant pulmonary nodules. Methods: A computerized research, including published articles from 2012 and 2017, was carried out. F-18-FDG-PET/CT overall sensitivity (Se), specificity (Spe), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), diagnostic index and odds ratio were pooled. No selection-bias were found according to asymmetry test. Results: A total of twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled Se, Spe, PLR, NLR, PPV, NPV and accuracy index (AI) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 0.819 (95% CI: 0.794-0.843), 0.624 (95% CI: 0.582-0.665), 2.190 (95% CI: 1.950-2.440), 0.290 (95% CI: 0.250-0.330), 0.802 (95% CI: 0.783-0.819), 0.652 (95% CI: 0.618-0.684) and 0.649 (95% CI: 0.625-0.673), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 7.049 with a relative 95% CI between 5.550 and 8.944. Conclusions: The results suggest F-18-FDG-PET/CT has good diagnostic accuracy in SPNs evaluation; but, it should not be considered as a discriminatory test rather than a method to be included in a clinical and diagnostic pathway.

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