DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET in Patients with Testicular Cancer: a Meta-analysis

  • Zhao, Jing-Yi (Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University) ;
  • Ma, Xue-Lei (Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University) ;
  • Li, Yan-Yan (Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University) ;
  • Zhang, Bing-Lan (Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University) ;
  • Li, Min-Min (Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University) ;
  • Ma, Xue-Lei (Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University) ;
  • Liu, Lei (Cancer Center and State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University)
  • Published : 2014.04.30

Abstract

Objective: Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) is a new technique for identifying different malignant tumors using different uptake values between tumor cells and normal tissues. Here we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET in patients with testicular cancer by pooling data of existing trials in a meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Trials databases were searched and studies published in English relating to the diagnostic value of FDG-PET for testicular cancer were collected. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was used to examine the FDG-PET accuracy. Results: A total of 16 studies which included 957 examinations in 807 patients (median age, 31.1 years) were analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed to combine the sensitivity and specificity and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), from diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratios (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR). SROC were derived to demonstrate the diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET for testicular cancer. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.80) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.89), respectively. The pooled DOR was 35.6 (95% CI, 12.9-98.3). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.88. The pooled PLR and pooled NLR were 7.80 (95% CI, 3.73-16.3) and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43), respectively. Conclusion: In patients with testicular cancer, 18F-FDG-PET demonstrated a high SROC area, and could be a potentially useful tool if combined with other imaging methods such as MRI and CT. Nevertheless, the literature focusing on the use of 18F-FDG-PET in this setting still remains limited.

References

  1. Yetisyigit T, Babacan N, Urun Y et al (2014). Predictors of outcome in patients with advanced nonseminomatous germ cell testicular tumors. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 831-5. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.2.831
  2. Uzel EK, Ekmekcioglu O, Elicin O, Halac M & Uzel OE (2013). Is FDG -PET-CT a valuable tool in prediction of persistent disease in head and neck cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 4847-51. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.8.4847
  3. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM & Kleijnen J (2003). The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 3, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-3-25
  4. Wilson CB, Young HE, Ott RJ et al (1995). Imaging metastatic testicular germ cell tumours with 18FDG positron emission tomography: prospects for detection and management. Eur J Nucl Med, 22, 508-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00817273
  5. Sanchez D, Zudaire JJ, Fernandez JM et al (2002). 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the evaluation of nonseminomatous germ cell tumours at relapse. BJU Int, 89, 912-6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02779.x
  6. Nichols CR (1998). Testicular cancer. Curr Probl Cancer, 22, 187-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-0272(98)90012-5
  7. Oechsle K, Hartmann M, Brenner W et al (2008) [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors after chemotherapy: the German multicenter positron emission tomography study group. J Clin Oncol, 26, 5930-5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.17.1157
  8. Rohren EM, Turkington TG & Coleman RE (2004). Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology, 231, 305-32. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312021185
  9. Saunders CA, Dussek JE, O’Doherty MJ & Maisey MN (1999). Evaluation of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose whole body positron emission tomography imaging in the staging of lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg, 67, 790-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)01257-0
  10. Siekiera J, Malkowski B, Jozwicki W et al (2012). Can we rely on PET in the follow-up of advanced seminoma patients? Urol Int, 88, 405-9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337056
  11. Spermon JR, De Geus-Oei LF, Kiemeney LA, Witjes JA & Oyen WJ (2002). The role of (18)fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in initial staging and re-staging after chemotherapy for testicular germ cell tumours. BJU Int, 89, 549-56. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02641.x
  12. Stephens AW, Gonin R, Hutchins GD & Einhorn LH (1996). Positron emission tomography evaluation of residual radiographic abnormalities in postchemotherapy germ cell tumor patients. J Clin Oncol, 14, 1637-41.
  13. Tsatalpas P, Beuthien-Baumann B, Kropp J et al (2002). Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for detection and treatment control of malignant germ cell tumors. Urol Int, 68, 157-63. https://doi.org/10.1159/000048442
  14. Kollmannsberger C, Oechsle K, Dohmen B M et al (2002). Prospective comparison of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with conventional assessment by computed tomography scans and serum tumor markers for the evaluation of residual masses in patients with nonseminomatous germ cell carcinoma. Cancer, 94, 2353-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10494
  15. Huddart R A (2003). Use of FDG-PET in testicular tumours. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol), 15, 123-7. https://doi.org/10.1053/clon.2002.0161
  16. Johns Putra L, Lawrentschuk N, Ballok Z et al (2004). 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluation of germ cell tumor after chemotherapy. Urology, 64, 1202-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.07.024
  17. Karapetis CS, Strickland AH, Yip D, Steer C & Harper P G (2003). Use of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scans in patients with advanced germ cell tumour following chemotherapy: single-centre experience with long-term follow up. Intern Med J, 33, 427-35. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-5994.2003.00456.x
  18. Lassen U, Daugaard G, Eigtved A et al (2003). Whole-body FDG-PET in patients with stage I non-seminomatous germ cell tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 30, 396-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-1075-z
  19. Lewis DA, Tann M, Kesler K et al (2006). Positron emission tomography scans in postchemotherapy seminoma patients with residual masses: a retrospective review from Indiana University Hospital. J Clin Oncol, 24, e54-5. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.1737
  20. McGee S (2002). Simplifying likelihood ratios. J Gen Intern Med, 17, 646-9.
  21. Moses LE, Shapiro D & Littenberg B (1993). Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med, 12, 1293-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780121403
  22. Mutlu H, Buyukcelik A, Erden A et al (2013). Staging with PET-CT in patients with locally advanced non small cell lung cancer is superior to conventional staging methods in terms of survival. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 3743-6. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.6.3743
  23. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P & Irwig L (2005). The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol, 58, 882-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016
  24. Devesa SS, Blot WJ, Stone BJ et al (1995). Recent cancer trends in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst, 87, 175-82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/87.3.175
  25. Ganjoo KN, Chan RJ, Sharma M & Einhorn LH (1999). Positron emission tomography scans in the evaluation of postchemotherapy residual masses in patients with seminoma. J Clin Oncol, 17, 3457-60.
  26. Hain S F (2005). Positron emission tomography in uro-oncology. Cancer Imaging, 5, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2005.0001
  27. Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR et al (2000). Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of germ cell tumours at relapse. Br J Cancer, 83, 863-9. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1389
  28. Halfpenny W, Hain SF, Biassoni L et al (2002). FDG-PET. A possible prognostic factor in head and neck cancer. Br J Cancer, 86, 512-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600114
  29. Hanley JA & McNeil BJ (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747
  30. Hinz S, Schrader M, Kempkensteffen C et al (2008). The role of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of residual masses after chemotherapy for advanced stage seminoma. J Urol, 179, 936-40; discussion 940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.054
  31. Hoekstra OS, Ossenkoppele GJ, Golding R et al (1993). Early treatment response in malignant lymphoma, as determined by planar fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose scintigraphy. J Nucl Med, 34, 1706-10.
  32. Hofer C, Kubler H, Hartung R, Breul J & Avril N (2001). Diagnosis and monitoring of urological tumors using positron emission tomography. Eur Urol, 40, 481-7.
  33. Chen YK, Yeh CL, Tsui CC et al (2011). F-18 FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow involvement in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med, 36, 553-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e318217aeff
  34. Becherer A (2011). PET in testicular cancer. Methods Mol Biol, 727, 225-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-062-1_13
  35. Becherer A, De Santis M, Karanikas G et al (2005). FDG PET is superior to CT in the prediction of viable tumour in postchemotherapy seminoma residuals. Eur J Radiol, 54, 284-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.012
  36. Bokemeyer C, Kollmannsberger C, Oechsle K et al (2002) Early prediction of treatment response to high-dose salvage chemotherapy in patients with relapsed germ cell cancer using [ (18)F]FDG PET. Br J Cancer, 86, 506-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600122
  37. Cremerius U, Wildberger JE, Borchers H et al (1999). Does positron emission tomography using 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose improve clinical staging of testicular cancer?--Results of a study in 50 patients. Urology, 54, 900-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00272-1
  38. Cremerius U, Effert PJ, Adam G et al (1998). FDG PET for detection and therapy control of metastatic germ cell tumor. J Nucl Med, 39, 815-22.
  39. Czernin J (2002). Clinical applications of FDG-PET in oncology. Acta Med Austriaca, 29, 162-70. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1563-2571.2002.02042.x
  40. Dalal PU, Sohaib SA & Huddart R (2006). Imaging of testicular germ cell tumours. Cancer Imaging, 6, 124-34. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2006.0020
  41. De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C et al (2004). 2-18fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor for viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma:an update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial. J Clin Oncol, 22, 1034-9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.07.188
  42. de Wit M, Brenner W, Hartmann M et al (2008). [18F]-FDG-PET in clinical stage I/II non-seminomatous germ cell tumours:results of the German multicentre trial. Ann Oncol, 19, 1619-23. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdn170
  43. Akbulut Z, Canda AE, Atmaca AF et al (2011). Is positron emission tomography reliable to predict post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node involvement in advanced germ cell tumors of the testis? Urol J, 8, 120-6.
  44. Albers P, Bender H, Yilmaz H et al (1999). Positron emission tomography in the clinical staging of patients with Stage I and II testicular germ cell tumors. Urology, 53, 808-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00576-7
  45. Albers P, Weissbach L, Krege S et al (2004). Prediction of necrosis after chemotherapy of advanced germ cell tumors:results of a prospective multicenter trial of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group. J Urol, 171, 1835-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000119121.36427.09
  46. Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H et al (2004). Accuracy of wholebody 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, 22, 4357-68. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.08.120
  47. Bachner M, Loriot Y, Gross-Goupil M et al (2012). 2-(1)(8)fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for postchemotherapy seminoma residual lesions: a retrospective validation of the SEMPET trial. Ann Oncol, 23, 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr052

Cited by

  1. Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of Technicians Working at Hospitals Towards Testicular Cancer and Self-examination of Testicles in Turkey vol.15, pp.23, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.23.10095
  2. Diagnostic accuracy of DWI in patients with ovarian cancer vol.96, pp.19, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006659