Head-to-head comparison of (68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of primary digestive system cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

(68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT 与(18)F-FDG PET/CT 在原发性消化系统肿瘤评估中的直接比较:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:3

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Althoug (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is widely accepted as a diagnostic tool for detecting digestive cancers, (68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT may perform better in detecting gastrointestinal malignancies at an earlier stage. This study aimed to systematically review the diagnostic performance of (68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT compared with that of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in primary digestive system cancers. METHODS: In this study, a comprehensive search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed to identify studies that met the eligibility criteria from the beginning of the databases to March 2023. The quality of the relevant studies with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) method was assessed using the RevMan 5.3 software. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using bivariate random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) statistic and meta-regression analysis using the R 4.22 software. RESULTS: A total of 800 publications were identified in the initial search. Finally, 15 studies comprising 383 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of (68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94-1.00) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.23-1.00), whereas those of (18)F-FDG PET/CT were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.60-0.84) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.52-0.95), respectively. (68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT performed better for specific tumours, particularly in gastric, liver, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers. Both imaging modalities had essentially the same diagnostic efficacy in colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: (68)Ga-FAPI-04 PET/CT showed a higher diagnostic ability than (18)F-FDG PET/CT in terms of diagnosing primary digestive tract cancers, especially gastric, liver, biliary tract, and pancreatic cancers. The certainty of the evidence was high due to the moderately low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability. However, the sample size of the included studies was small and heterogeneous. More high-quality prospective studies are needed to obtain higher-quality evidence in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO [CRD42023402892].

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。