Meta-analysis of different positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging agents in the diagnosis of gliomas

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2023.04.002

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the diagnostic value of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging with different radionuclide agents in the diagnosis of gliomas.Methods Diagnostic clinical trials of different imaging agents for gliomas were searched in the Chinese and English language databases. Original data like the true positive, false positive, true negative and false negative were extracted from eligible literatures. Meta - Discl 1.4 was used data analysis. The sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under SROC curve (AUC) of PET/CT imaging using different imaging agents in the diagnosis of glioma were calculated. Results A total of 14 eligible literatures were included, involving 9 describing ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucos (¹⁸F-FDG) imaging, 8 describing ¹¹C-Methionine (¹¹C-MET) imaging, 3 describing ¹⁸F-fluoro-ethyl-L-tyrosine (¹⁸F-FET) imaging, 1 describing ¹³N-NH₃ imaging, and 1 describing O-(2-¹⁸F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (¹⁸F-FLT) imaging. The data of ¹⁸F-FDG, ¹¹C-MET and ¹⁸F-FET were analyzed and compared. The results showed that the SEN and diagnostic performance (AUC value) of ¹¹C-MET and ¹⁸F-FET PET/CT for gliomas were significantly higher than those of ¹⁸F-FDG (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in SPE, PLR, NLR and DOR between groups (P>0.05). Conclusion ¹¹C-MET and ¹⁸F-FET PET/CT imaging are superior to ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis of gliomas.

Key words: glioma, PET/CT, ¹⁸F-FDG, ¹¹C-methionine, ¹⁸F-FET

CLC Number:

R730.264

Liu Fei, Lin Zhichun, Yue Jianlan, Yin Liang, Huang Shiming. Meta-analysis of different positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging agents in the diagnosis of gliomas[J]. Clinical Focus, 2023, 38(4): 302-307.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2023.04.002

https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2023/V38/I4/302

Figures/Tables 5

References 30

[1]	Molinaro AM, Taylor JW, Wiencke JK, et al. Genetic and molecular epidemiology of adult diffuse glioma[J]. Nat Rev Neurol, 2019, 15(7): 405-417. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0220-2 pmid: 31227792
[2]	Erker C, Tamrazi B, Poussaint TY, et al. Response assessment in paediatric high-grade glioma: Recommendations from the Response Assessment in Pediatric Neuro-Oncology (RAPNO) working group[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2020, 21(6): e317-e329. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30173-X pmid: 32502458
[3]	Quartuccio N, Laudicella R. The additional value of (18)F-FDG PET and MRI in patients with glioma: A review of the literature from 2015 to 2020[J]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2020, 106(6):1-16.
[4]	Mansoor NM, Thust S, Militano V, et al. PET imaging in glioma: Techniques and current evidence[J]. Nucl Med Commun, 2018, 39(12): 1064-1080. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000914 pmid: 30303860
[5]	Kertels O, Kessler AF, Mihovilovic MI, et al. Prognostic value of O-(2-[(18)F]Fluoroethyl)-L-Tyrosine PET/CT in newly diagnosed WHO 2016 grade ii and iii glioma[J]. Mol Imaging Biol, 2019, 21(6): 1174-1181. doi: 10.1007/s11307-019-01357-y pmid: 30977078
[6]	Morana G, Puntoni M, Garrè ML, et al. Ability of (18)F-DOPA PET/CT and fused (18)F-DOPA PET/MRI to assess striatal involvement in paediatric glioma[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2016, 43(9): 1664-1672. doi: 10.1007/s00259-016-3333-5 URL
[7]	Khangembam BC, Karunanithi S, Sharma P, et al. Perfusion-metabolism coupling in recurrent gliomas: A prospective validation study with ¹³N-ammonia and ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT[J]. Neuroradiology, 2014, 56(10): 893-902. doi: 10.1007/s00234-014-1389-0 pmid: 24989883
[8]	Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2011, 155(8): 529-536. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 pmid: 22007046
[9]	龙亚丽, 何巧, 张冰, 等. ¹³N-NH₃、¹¹C-MET及¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT显像在脑胶质瘤诊断与评估中的对比研究[J]. 中华核医学与分子影像杂志, 2020, 25(3): 159-165.
[10]	饶良俊, 杨智云, 陈志丰, 等. 比较¹⁸F-FDGPET/CT、¹¹C-METPET/CT和MRI诊断神经胶质瘤的效能[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2014, 30(10): 1463-1466.
[11]	理东丽, 许乙凯, 王全师, 等. ¹¹C-MET和¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT对胶质瘤诊断的价值比较[J]. 核技术, 2011, 34(02): 151-155.
[12]	Shaw TB, Jeffree RL. Diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of glioma[J]. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol, 2019, 63(5): 650-656. doi: 10.1111/jmiro.v63.5 URL
[13]	Yoon JH, Kim JH, Kang WJ, et al. Grading of cerebral glioma with multiparametric MR imaging and 18F-FDG-PET: Concordance and accuracy[J]. Eur Radiol, 2014, 24(2): 380-389. pmid: 24078054
[14]	Miyake K, Shinomiya A, Okada M, et al. Usefulness of FDG, MET and FLT-PET studies for the management of human gliomas[J]. J Biomed Biotechnol, 2012, 2012(4): 205818.
[15]	Lau EW, Drummond KJ, Ware RE, et al. Comparative PET study using F-18 FET and F-18 FDG for the evaluation of patients with suspected brain tumour[J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2010, 17(1): 43-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2009.05.009 pmid: 20004582
[16]	Ghany AFA, Hamed MAG. The diagnostic value of dual phase FDG PET CT in grading of gliomas[J]. Egyptian J Radiol Nuclear Med, 2015, 46(3): 701-705. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrnm.2015.04.011 URL
[17]	Plotkin M, Blechschmidt C, Auf G, et al. Comparison of F-18 FET PET with F-18 FDG PET for biopsy planning of non-contrast-enhancing gliomas[J]. Eur Radiol, 2010, 20(10): 2496-2502. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-1819-2 URL
[18]	赵晓斌, 武玉亮, 李德岭, 等. ¹¹C-蛋氨酸PET/CT在脑干胶质瘤诊断及治疗中的价值[J]. 中华神经外科杂志, 2018, 34(4): 338-343.
[19]	Tietze A, Boldsen JK, Mouridsen K, et al. Spatial distribution of malignant tissue in gliomas: Correlations of 11C-L-methionine positron emission tomography and perfusion- and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging[J]. Acta Radiol, 2015, 56(9): 1135-1144. doi: 10.1177/0284185114550020 pmid: 25270372
[20]	Tateishi K, Tateishi U, Nakanowatari S, et al. (62)Cu-diacetyl-bis (N(4)-methylthiosemicarbazone) PET in human gliomas: Comparative study with [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose and L-methyl-[(11)C]methionine PET[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2014, 35(2): 278-284. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3679 URL
[21]	Boss A, Bisdas S, Kolb A, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI of intracranial masses: Initial experiences and comparison to PET/CT[J]. J Nucl Med, 2010, 51(8): 1198-1205. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.110.074773 URL
[22]	Pichler R, Dunzinger A, Wurm G, et al. Is there a place for FET PET in the initial evaluation of brain lesions with unknown significance?[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2010, 37(8): 1521-1528. doi: 10.1007/s00259-010-1457-6 URL
[23]	Cloughesy TF, Petrecca K, Walbert T, et al. Effect of vocimagene amiretrorepvec in combination with flucytosine vs standard of care on survival following tumor resection in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma: A randomized clinical trial[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2020, 6(12): 1939-1946. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3161 pmid: 33119048
[24]	Li D, Patel CB, Xu G, et al. Visualization of diagnostic and therapeutic targets in glioma with molecular imaging[J]. Front Immunol, 2020, 11(10): 592389. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.592389 URL
[25]	Arora G, Sharma P, Sharma A, et al. 99mTc-methionine hybrid SPECT/CT for detection of recurrent glioma: Comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT and contrast-enhanced MRI[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2018, 43(5): e132-e138. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002036 URL
[26]	Jung TY, Min JJ, Bom HS, et al. Prognostic value of post-treatment metabolic tumor volume from (11)C-methionine PET/CT in recurrent malignant glioma[J]. Neurosurg Rev, 2017, 40(2): 223-229. doi: 10.1007/s10143-016-0748-1 URL
[27]	Ogawa T, Kawai N, Miyake K, et al. Diagnostic value of PET/CT with (11)C-methionine (MET) and (18)F-fluorothymidine (FLT) in newly diagnosed glioma based on the 2016 WHO classification[J]. EJNMMI Res, 2021, 10(1): 44. doi: 10.1186/s13550-020-00633-1
[28]	Ideguchi M, Nishizaki T, Ikeda N, et al. A surgical strategy using a fusion image constructed from 11C-methionine PET, 18F-FDG-PET and MRI for glioma with no or minimum contrast enhancement[J]. J Neurooncol, 2018, 138(3): 537-548. doi: 10.1007/s11060-018-2821-9
[29]	He Q, Zhang L, Zhang B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of (13)N-ammonia PET, (11)C-methionine PET and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET: A comparative study in patients with suspected cerebral glioma[J]. BMC Cancer, 2020, 19(1): 332. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5560-1
[30]	Lohmann P, Werner JM. Combined amino acid positron emission tomography and advanced magnetic resonance imaging in glioma patients[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2019, 11(2): 1-13. doi: 10.3390/cancers11010001 URL

作者	发表时间	国家	年龄	设计方法	金标准	病例入组时间	QUADAS
作者	发表时间	国家	年龄	设计方法	金标准	病例入组时间	是	否/不清楚
龙亚丽^[9]	2020	中国	40.0±14.0	回顾性	组织病理、随访	2010.09-2017.12	12	2
饶良俊^[10]	2014	中国	37.7±15.9	回顾性	组织病理	2009.12-2013.03	12	2
理东丽^[11]	2011	中国	38.5(6-79)	回顾性	组织病理	2005-2008	12	2
Shaw^[12]	2019	Australia	44(24-74)	回顾性	组织病理	2009.05-2016.01	13	1
Yoon^[13]	2014	Korea	50±13.8	回顾性	组织病理	2003.02-2006.12	11	3
Miyake^[14]	2012	Japan	52±18.1	回顾性	组织病理	2006.04-2011.10	13	1
Lau^[15]	2010	Australia	37(24-69)	回顾性	组织病理、随访	2004-2006	12	2
Ghany^[16]	2015	Egypt	40(24-60)	回顾性	组织病理	2014.07-2015.03	11	3
Plotkin^[17]	2010	Germany	44(26-65)	前瞻性	组织病理	不详	10	4
赵晓斌^[18]	2018	中国	2-66	前瞻性	组织病理	2015.01-2016.10	11	3
Tietze^[19]	2015	Denmark	52 (31-64)	回顾性	组织病理	不详	10	4
Tateishi^[20]	2014	Japan	54(19-81)	前瞻性	组织病理	2010.12-2012.12	11	3
Boss^[21]	2010	Germany	51(34-73)	回顾性	组织病理	2008.08-2009.11	13	1
Pichler^[22]	2010	Austria	50±19	回顾性	组织病理、随访	2006.01-2008.12	12	2

作者	发表时间	国家	年龄	设计方法	金标准	病例入组时间	QUADAS
作者	发表时间	国家	年龄	设计方法	金标准	病例入组时间	是	否/不清楚
龙亚丽^[9]	2020	中国	40.0±14.0	回顾性	组织病理、随访	2010.09-2017.12	12	2
饶良俊^[10]	2014	中国	37.7±15.9	回顾性	组织病理	2009.12-2013.03	12	2
理东丽^[11]	2011	中国	38.5(6-79)	回顾性	组织病理	2005-2008	12	2
Shaw^[12]	2019	Australia	44(24-74)	回顾性	组织病理	2009.05-2016.01	13	1
Yoon^[13]	2014	Korea	50±13.8	回顾性	组织病理	2003.02-2006.12	11	3
Miyake^[14]	2012	Japan	52±18.1	回顾性	组织病理	2006.04-2011.10	13	1
Lau^[15]	2010	Australia	37(24-69)	回顾性	组织病理、随访	2004-2006	12	2
Ghany^[16]	2015	Egypt	40(24-60)	回顾性	组织病理	2014.07-2015.03	11	3
Plotkin^[17]	2010	Germany	44(26-65)	前瞻性	组织病理	不详	10	4
赵晓斌^[18]	2018	中国	2-66	前瞻性	组织病理	2015.01-2016.10	11	3
Tietze^[19]	2015	Denmark	52 (31-64)	回顾性	组织病理	不详	10	4
Tateishi^[20]	2014	Japan	54(19-81)	前瞻性	组织病理	2010.12-2012.12	11	3
Boss^[21]	2010	Germany	51(34-73)	回顾性	组织病理	2008.08-2009.11	13	1
Pichler^[22]	2010	Austria	50±19	回顾性	组织病理、随访	2006.01-2008.12	12	2

作者	病例数	显像剂	注射剂量	显像间隔时间	TP	FP	FN	TN	SEN	SPE	ACC	PPV	NPV
龙亚丽^[9]	90(54/36)	¹⁸F-FDG	5.18 MBq/kg	30 min	24	8	43	15	35.82%	65.22%	43.33%	75.00%	25.86%
		¹¹C-MET	7.4 MBq/kg	5 min	63	10	4	13	94.03%	56.52%	84.44%	86.30%	76.47%
		¹³N-NH₃	7.4 MBq/kg	5 min	42	1	25	22	62.69%	95.65%	71.11%	97.67%	46.81%
饶良俊^[10]	60(37/23)	¹⁸F-FDG	370~555 MBq	40 min	18	6	18	18	50.00%	75.00%	60.00%	75.00%	50.00%
		¹¹C-MET	370~555 MBq	10 min	35	2	1	22	97.22%	91.67%	95.00%	94.59%	95.65%
理东丽^[11]	44(26/18)	¹⁸F-FDG	259~444 MBq	50~60 min	13	2	13	16	50.00%	88.89%	65.91%	86.67%	55.17%
		¹¹C-MET	370~555 MBq	10 min	24	3	2	15	92.31%	83.33%	88.64%	88.89%	88.24%
Shaw^[12]	33(22/11)	¹⁸F-FDG	不详	45 min	13	3	9	11	59.09%	78.57%	66.67%	81.25%	55.00%
Yoon^[13]	60(35/25)	¹⁸F-FDG	5.18 MBq/kg	60 min	37	2	11	10	77.08%	83.33%	78.33%	94.87%	47.62%
Miyake^[14]	54(26/18)	¹⁸F-FDG	147~295 MBq	45 min	24	4	21	5	53.33%	55.56%	53.70%	85.71%	19.23%
		¹¹C-MET	113~389 MBq	10 min	41	10	2	1	95.35%	9.09%	77.78%	80.39%	33.33%
		¹⁸F-FLT	129~236 MBq	40 min	42	8	3	2	93.33%	20.00%	80.00%	84.00%	40.00%
Lau^[15]	21(14/7)	¹⁸F-FDG	400 MBq	60 min	4	1	11	9	26.67%	90.00%	52.00%	80.00%	45.00%
		¹⁸F-FET	400 MBq	60 min	14	0	1	10	93.33%	100.00%	96.00%	100.00%	90.91%
Ghany^[16]	16(9/7)	¹⁸F-FDG	8~15 mCi	40~45 min	8	1	1	6	88.89%	85.71%	87.50%	88.89%	85.71%
Plotkin^[17]	15(6/9)	¹⁸F-FDG	300 MBq	60 min	4	2	2	7	93.33%	100.00%	96.00%	100.00%	90.91%
		¹⁸F-FET	200 MBq	10 min	5	8	1	1	66.67%	77.78%	73.33%	66.67%	77.78%
赵晓斌^[18]	41(不详)	¹¹C-MET	555~740 MBq	10~15 min	18	1	11	11	62.07%	91.67%	70.73%	94.74%	50.00%
Tietze^[19]	13(7/6)	¹¹C-MET	500 MBq	20 min	7	3	0	3	100.00%	50.00%	76.92%	70.00%	100.00%
Tateishi^[20]	14(不详)	¹¹C-MET	370 MBq	20 min	6	3	0	5	100.00%	62.50%	78.57%	66.67%	100.00%
Boss^[21]	10(不详)	¹¹C-MET	585~764 MBq	30 min	3	5	0	2	100.00%	28.57%	50.00%	37.50%	100.00%
Pichler^[22]	88(44/44)	¹⁸F-FET	185 MBq	30 min	34	6	2	13	94.44%	68.42%	85.45%	85.00%	86.67%

作者	病例数	显像剂	注射剂量	显像间隔时间	TP	FP	FN	TN	SEN	SPE	ACC	PPV	NPV
龙亚丽^[9]	90(54/36)	¹⁸F-FDG	5.18 MBq/kg	30 min	24	8	43	15	35.82%	65.22%	43.33%	75.00%	25.86%
		¹¹C-MET	7.4 MBq/kg	5 min	63	10	4	13	94.03%	56.52%	84.44%	86.30%	76.47%
		¹³N-NH₃	7.4 MBq/kg	5 min	42	1	25	22	62.69%	95.65%	71.11%	97.67%	46.81%
饶良俊^[10]	60(37/23)	¹⁸F-FDG	370~555 MBq	40 min	18	6	18	18	50.00%	75.00%	60.00%	75.00%	50.00%
		¹¹C-MET	370~555 MBq	10 min	35	2	1	22	97.22%	91.67%	95.00%	94.59%	95.65%
理东丽^[11]	44(26/18)	¹⁸F-FDG	259~444 MBq	50~60 min	13	2	13	16	50.00%	88.89%	65.91%	86.67%	55.17%
		¹¹C-MET	370~555 MBq	10 min	24	3	2	15	92.31%	83.33%	88.64%	88.89%	88.24%
Shaw^[12]	33(22/11)	¹⁸F-FDG	不详	45 min	13	3	9	11	59.09%	78.57%	66.67%	81.25%	55.00%
Yoon^[13]	60(35/25)	¹⁸F-FDG	5.18 MBq/kg	60 min	37	2	11	10	77.08%	83.33%	78.33%	94.87%	47.62%
Miyake^[14]	54(26/18)	¹⁸F-FDG	147~295 MBq	45 min	24	4	21	5	53.33%	55.56%	53.70%	85.71%	19.23%
		¹¹C-MET	113~389 MBq	10 min	41	10	2	1	95.35%	9.09%	77.78%	80.39%	33.33%
		¹⁸F-FLT	129~236 MBq	40 min	42	8	3	2	93.33%	20.00%	80.00%	84.00%	40.00%
Lau^[15]	21(14/7)	¹⁸F-FDG	400 MBq	60 min	4	1	11	9	26.67%	90.00%	52.00%	80.00%	45.00%
		¹⁸F-FET	400 MBq	60 min	14	0	1	10	93.33%	100.00%	96.00%	100.00%	90.91%
Ghany^[16]	16(9/7)	¹⁸F-FDG	8~15 mCi	40~45 min	8	1	1	6	88.89%	85.71%	87.50%	88.89%	85.71%
Plotkin^[17]	15(6/9)	¹⁸F-FDG	300 MBq	60 min	4	2	2	7	93.33%	100.00%	96.00%	100.00%	90.91%
		¹⁸F-FET	200 MBq	10 min	5	8	1	1	66.67%	77.78%	73.33%	66.67%	77.78%
赵晓斌^[18]	41(不详)	¹¹C-MET	555~740 MBq	10~15 min	18	1	11	11	62.07%	91.67%	70.73%	94.74%	50.00%
Tietze^[19]	13(7/6)	¹¹C-MET	500 MBq	20 min	7	3	0	3	100.00%	50.00%	76.92%	70.00%	100.00%
Tateishi^[20]	14(不详)	¹¹C-MET	370 MBq	20 min	6	3	0	5	100.00%	62.50%	78.57%	66.67%	100.00%
Boss^[21]	10(不详)	¹¹C-MET	585~764 MBq	30 min	3	5	0	2	100.00%	28.57%	50.00%	37.50%	100.00%
Pichler^[22]	88(44/44)	¹⁸F-FET	185 MBq	30 min	34	6	2	13	94.44%	68.42%	85.45%	85.00%	86.67%

项目	¹⁸F-FDG (n=9)	¹¹C-MET (n=8)	¹⁸F-FET (n=3)	Z值	P值
敏感度	53%	91%	93%	47.86	<0.001
特异度	77%	66%	63%	2.182	0.143
PLR	2.11	2.67	2.77	0.075	0.928
NLR	0.61	0.16	0.16	7.021	0.006
DOR	4.04	21.94	16.99	0.228	0.799
AUC	0.75	0.93	0.97	25.700	<0.001