Home > DARE Reviews > [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron...

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

[18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Review published: 2013.

Bibliographic details: Chien CR, Liang JA, Chen JH, Wang HN, Lin CC, Chen CY, Wang PH, Kao CH, Yeh JJ.  [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography screening for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Imaging 2013; 13(4): 458-65. [PMC free article: PMC3864168] [PubMed: 24334433]

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Although low-dose computed tomography (CT) is a recommended modality for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations, the role of other modalities, such as [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET), is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to describe the role of PET in lung cancer screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by reviewing primary studies focusing on PET screening for lung cancer until July 2012. Two independent reviewers identified studies that were compatible for inclusion/exclusion criteria. The analysis was restricted to English and included studies published since 2000. A descriptive analysis was used to summarize the results, and the pooled diagnostic performance of selective PET screening was calculated by weighted average using individual sample sizes.

RESULTS: Among the identified studies (n = 3497), 12 studies were included for analysis. None of the studies evaluated the efficacy of primary PET screening specific to lung cancer. Eight studies focused on primary PET screening for all types of cancer; the detection rates of lung cancer were low. Four studies reported evidence of lung cancer screening programs with selective PET, in which the estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity was 83% and 91%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: The role of primary PET screening for lung cancer remains unknown. However, PET has high sensitivity and specificity as a selective screening modality. Further studies must be conducted to evaluate the use of PET or PET/computed tomography screening for high-risk populations, preferably using randomized trials or prospective registration.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our meta-analysis indicates that PET has high sensitivity and specificity as a selective screening modality.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PMID: 24334433

PubReader format: click here to try

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...