Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our meta-analysis and systematic review was to contrast the positivity rates of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET in detecting bone and lymph node metastases across diverse cancer types.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search for eligible articles up until August 2023, utilizing databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies focusing on the positivity rate of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET vs. [18F]FDG PET for bone and lymph metastasis were included. Using random-effect model, the positivity rate for [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET were generated. In order to gauge the heterogeneity among aggregated studies, we utilized the I2 statistic. Additionally, we applied the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies (QUADAS-2) methodology to evaluate the caliber of the studies encompassed in our analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 430 publications were initially identified in the search. Eventually, 25 studies, involving 779 patients, met the inclusion criteria. In terms of bone metastasis, the findings indicate no statistically significant difference between the use of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET (P = 0.34). However, concerning lymph node metastasis, the results demonstrate significant difference between the two imaging agents (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET appears to outperform [18F]FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastases. However, when it comes to bone metastasis, no statistically significant difference was observed. It is crucial to acknowledge that the insights concerning bone metastasis stem from studies with comparatively modest sample sizes. Consequently, there is a pressing demand for further, expansive prospective studies in this field.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search for eligible articles up until August 2023, utilizing databases including PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Studies focusing on the positivity rate of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET vs. [18F]FDG PET for bone and lymph metastasis were included. Using random-effect model, the positivity rate for [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET were generated. In order to gauge the heterogeneity among aggregated studies, we utilized the I2 statistic. Additionally, we applied the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies (QUADAS-2) methodology to evaluate the caliber of the studies encompassed in our analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 430 publications were initially identified in the search. Eventually, 25 studies, involving 779 patients, met the inclusion criteria. In terms of bone metastasis, the findings indicate no statistically significant difference between the use of [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET and [18F]FDG PET (P = 0.34). However, concerning lymph node metastasis, the results demonstrate significant difference between the two imaging agents (P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that [68Ga]Ga-FAPI PET appears to outperform [18F]FDG PET in detecting lymph node metastases. However, when it comes to bone metastasis, no statistically significant difference was observed. It is crucial to acknowledge that the insights concerning bone metastasis stem from studies with comparatively modest sample sizes. Consequently, there is a pressing demand for further, expansive prospective studies in this field.
摘要：
目的：我们的荟萃分析和系统评价的目的是对比[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET和[18F]FDGPET在检测不同癌症类型的骨和淋巴结转移方面的阳性率。
方法：我们对符合条件的文章进行了全面搜索，直到2023年8月，利用包括PubMed在内的数据库，Embase,和WebofScience。重点研究[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET的阳性率与包括骨和淋巴转移的[18F]FDGPET。使用随机效应模型，产生[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET和[18F]FDGPET的阳性率。为了衡量汇总研究之间的异质性，我们利用I2统计量。此外,我们应用了诊断性能研究质量评估(QUADAS-2)方法来评估我们分析中包含的研究的口径.
结果：在搜索中初步确定了总共430种出版物。最终,25项研究,涉及779名患者,符合纳入标准。在骨转移方面，结果表明，使用[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET和[18F]FDGPET之间没有统计学上的显着差异（P=0.34）。然而,关于淋巴结转移，结果表明两种显像剂之间存在显着差异（P=0.04）。
结论：本系统综述表明[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET在检测淋巴结转移方面似乎优于[18F]FDGPET。然而,说到骨转移，差异无统计学意义。必须承认，有关骨转移的见解源于样本量相对适中的研究。因此,迫切需要进一步发展，在这一领域进行了广泛的前瞻性研究。
方法：我们对符合条件的文章进行了全面搜索，直到2023年8月，利用包括PubMed在内的数据库，Embase,和WebofScience。重点研究[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET的阳性率与包括骨和淋巴转移的[18F]FDGPET。使用随机效应模型，产生[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET和[18F]FDGPET的阳性率。为了衡量汇总研究之间的异质性，我们利用I2统计量。此外,我们应用了诊断性能研究质量评估(QUADAS-2)方法来评估我们分析中包含的研究的口径.
结果：在搜索中初步确定了总共430种出版物。最终,25项研究,涉及779名患者,符合纳入标准。在骨转移方面，结果表明，使用[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET和[18F]FDGPET之间没有统计学上的显着差异（P=0.34）。然而,关于淋巴结转移，结果表明两种显像剂之间存在显着差异（P=0.04）。
结论：本系统综述表明[68Ga]Ga-FAPIPET在检测淋巴结转移方面似乎优于[18F]FDGPET。然而,说到骨转移，差异无统计学意义。必须承认，有关骨转移的见解源于样本量相对适中的研究。因此,迫切需要进一步发展，在这一领域进行了广泛的前瞻性研究。
