Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic value of [18F] FDG-PET and PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a meta-analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Tumor Biology

Abstract

An early diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer is crucial for early treatment and management. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy of 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer with meta-analysis. The PubMed and CNKI databases were searched for the eligible studies published up to June 01, 2014. The sensitivity, specificity, and other measures of accuracy of 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer were pooled along with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to summarize overall test performance. Ten studies met our inclusion criteria. The summary estimates for 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT in the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer in meta-analysis were as follows: a pooled sensitivity, 0.82 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.88); a pooled specificity, 0.92 (95 % CI, 0.87 to 0.95); positive likelihood ratio, 6.80 (95 % CI, 4.31 to 10.74); negative likelihood ratio, 0.27 (95 % CI, 0.19 to 0.36); and diagnostic odds ratio, 25.18 (95 % CI, 17.58 to 70.4). The results indicate that 18 F FDG-PET and PET/CT are relatively high sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of urinary bladder cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:277–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaufman DS, Shipley WU, Feldman AS. Bladder cancer. Lancet. 2009;374:239–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Paik ML, Scolieri MJ, Brown SL, Spirnak JP, Resnick MI. Limitations of computerized tomography in staging invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1693–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Voges GE, Tauschke E, Stöckle M, Alken P, Hohenfellner R. Computerized tomography: an unreliable method for accurate staging of bladder tumors in patients who are candidates for radical cystectomy. J Urol. 1989;142(4):972–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen K, Chen X. Positron emission tomography imaging of cancer biology: current status and future prospects. Semin Oncol. 2011;38:70–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chiti A, Picchio M. The rising PET: the increasing use of choline PET/CT in prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:53–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mertens K, Slaets D, Lambert B, Acou M, De Vos F, Goethals I. PET with (18)F-labelled choline-based tracers for tumour imaging: a review of the literature. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2188–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(21):4357–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(8):1200–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET andPET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(11):1797–803.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy: towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy; the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Balk EM, et al. Diagnosing acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review of the accuracy and clinical effect of current technologies. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37:453–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests: a review of the concepts and methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:675–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suzuki S, Moro-oka T, Choudhry NK. The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:461–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Westwood ME, Whiting PF, Kleijnen J. How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;8:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Drieskens O, Oyen R, Van Poppel H, Vankan Y, Flamen P, Mortelmans L. FDG-PET for preoperative staging of bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(12):1412–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Anjos DA, Etchebehere EC, Ramos CD, Santos AO, Albertotti C. Camargo EE.18F-FDG PET/CT delayed images after diuretic for restaging invasive bladder cancer. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(5):764–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jadvar H, Quan V, Henderson RW, Conti PS. [F-18]-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET and PET-CT in diagnostic imaging evaluation of locally recurrent and metastatic bladder transitional cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2008;13(1):42–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kibel AS, Dehdashti F, Katz MD, Klim AP, Grubb RL, Humphrey PA, et al. Prospective study of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for staging of muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):4314–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Harkirat S, Anand S, Jacob M. Forced diuresis and dual-phase F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT scan for restaging of urinary bladder cancers. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2010;20(1):13–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Apolo AB, Riches J, Schöder H, Akin O, Trout A, Milowsky MI, et al. Clinical value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):3973–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen TK, Holt P, Gerke O, Riehmann M, Svolgaard B, Marcussen N, et al. Preoperative lymph-node staging of invasive urothelial bladder cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed axial tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with histopathology. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011;45(2):122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yang Z, Cheng J, Pan L, Hu S, Xu J, Zhang Y, et al. Is whole-body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT plus additional pelvic images (oral hydration-voiding-refilling) useful for detecting recurrent bladder cancer? Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26(7):571–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goodfellow H, Viney Z, Hughes P, Rankin S, Rottenberg G, Hughes S, et al. Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET)-computed tomography (CT) in the staging of bladder cancer. BJU Int. 2013. doi:10.1111/bju.12608.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nayak B, Dogra PN, Naswa N, Kumar R. Diuretic 18 F-FDG PET/CT imaging for detection and locoregional staging of urinary bladder cancer: prospective evaluation of a novel technique. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(3):386–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hoffman JM, Gambhir SS. Molecular imaging: the vision and opportunity for radiology in the future. Radiology. 2007;244:39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Czernin J, Weber WA, Herschman HR. Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics. Annu Rev Med. 2006;57:99–118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schöder H, Larson SM. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2004;34:274–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Swinnen G, Maes A, Pottel H, Vanneste A, Billiet I, Lesage K, et al. FDG-PET/CT for the preoperative lymph node staging of invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2010;57:641–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lu YY, Chen JH, Liang JA, Wang HY, Lin CC, Lin WY, et al. Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:2411–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat Soc A. 1988;151:419–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Grant No. CH125520300, CH125520800 from “1255” Foundation of Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, China

      Huojun Zhang, Qinqin Kang, Chao Chen & Jianping Lu

    2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, No. 168 Changhai Road, Shanghai, 200433, China

      Huojun Zhang

    3. Department of Radiology, Affiliated Third Hospital of Suzhou University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, 213003, China

      Wei Xing

    4. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, No.168 Changhai Road, Shanghai, 200433, China

      Linhui Wang

    Authors
    1. Huojun Zhang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Wei Xing
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Qinqin Kang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Chao Chen
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    5. Linhui Wang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    6. Jianping Lu
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding authors

    Correspondence to Linhui Wang or Jianping Lu.

    Additional information

    H-J. Zhang and W. Xing contributed equally to this work and should be considered as co-first authors.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Zhang, H., Xing, W., Kang, Q. et al. Diagnostic value of [18F] FDG-PET and PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a meta-analysis. Tumor Biol. 36, 3209–3214 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-2361-7

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-2361-7

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation