Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic effectiveness of [18F]FDG PET/CT with that of [18F]FDG PET/MRI in terms of identifying liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched, and studies evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of [18F]FDG PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/MRI in patients with liver metastasis of primary cancer were included. We used a random effects model to analyze their sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on race, image analysis, study design, and analysis methodologies were conducted. Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Seven articles with 343 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity of [18F]FDG PET/CT was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.63-0.96), and that of [18F]FDG PET/MRI was 0.91 (95 % CI: 0.82-0.98); there was no significant difference between the two methods (P = 0.32). Similarly, both methods showed equal specificity: 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95-1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/CT and 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.96-1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI, and thus, there was no significant difference between the methods (P = 0.41). Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no differences. Meta-regression analysis revealed that race was a potential source of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/CT (P = 0.01), while image analysis and contrast agent were found to be potential sources of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: [18F]FDG PET/MRI has similar sensitivity and specificity to [18F]FDG PET/CT for detecting liver metastasis of primary cancer in both the general population and in subgroups. [18F]FDG PET/CT may be a more cost-effective option. However, the conclusions of this meta-analysis are tentative due to the limited number of studies included, and further research is necessary for validation.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched, and studies evaluating the diagnostic efficacy of [18F]FDG PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/MRI in patients with liver metastasis of primary cancer were included. We used a random effects model to analyze their sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses and corresponding meta-regressions focusing on race, image analysis, study design, and analysis methodologies were conducted. Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess intra-group and inter-group heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Seven articles with 343 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The sensitivity of [18F]FDG PET/CT was 0.82 (95 % CI: 0.63-0.96), and that of [18F]FDG PET/MRI was 0.91 (95 % CI: 0.82-0.98); there was no significant difference between the two methods (P = 0.32). Similarly, both methods showed equal specificity: 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.95-1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/CT and 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.96-1.00) for [18F]FDG PET/MRI, and thus, there was no significant difference between the methods (P = 0.41). Furthermore, the subgroup analyses revealed no differences. Meta-regression analysis revealed that race was a potential source of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/CT (P = 0.01), while image analysis and contrast agent were found to be potential sources of heterogeneity for [18F]FDG PET/MRI (P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: [18F]FDG PET/MRI has similar sensitivity and specificity to [18F]FDG PET/CT for detecting liver metastasis of primary cancer in both the general population and in subgroups. [18F]FDG PET/CT may be a more cost-effective option. However, the conclusions of this meta-analysis are tentative due to the limited number of studies included, and further research is necessary for validation.
摘要：
目的：本荟萃分析旨在比较[18F]FDGPET/CT与[18F]FDGPET/MRI在鉴别原发癌患者肝转移方面的诊断效能。
方法：PubMed，Embase,WebofScience,搜索了Cochrane图书馆,并纳入了评估[18F]FDGPET/CT和[18F]FDGPET/MRI对原发癌肝转移患者诊断效能的研究。我们使用随机效应模型来分析它们的敏感性和特异性。亚组分析和相应的荟萃回归侧重于种族，图像分析,研究设计，并进行了分析方法。CochraneQ和I2统计量用于评估组内和组间异质性。
结果：这篇meta分析纳入了7篇文章，共343例患者。[18F]FDGPET/CT的灵敏度为0.82（95％CI：0.63-0.96），[18F]FDGPET/MRI为0.91（95％CI：0.82-0.98）；两种方法之间没有显着差异（P=0.32）。同样，两种方法均显示相同的特异性：[18F]FDGPET/CT为1.00（95％CI：0.95-1.00），[18F]FDGPET/MRI为1.00（95％CI：0.96-1.00），因此，方法间差异无统计学意义(P=0.41)。此外，亚组分析显示无差异.Meta回归分析显示种族是[18F]FDGPET/CT异质性的潜在来源(P=0.01),而图像分析和造影剂被发现是[18F]FDGPET/MRI异质性的潜在来源（P=0.02）。
结论：[18F]FDGPET/MRI与[18F]FDGPET/CT在普通人群和亚组中具有相似的敏感性和特异性。[18F]FDGPET/CT可能是更具成本效益的选择。然而,由于纳入的研究数量有限，本荟萃分析的结论是初步的，和进一步的研究是必要的验证。
方法：PubMed，Embase,WebofScience,搜索了Cochrane图书馆,并纳入了评估[18F]FDGPET/CT和[18F]FDGPET/MRI对原发癌肝转移患者诊断效能的研究。我们使用随机效应模型来分析它们的敏感性和特异性。亚组分析和相应的荟萃回归侧重于种族，图像分析,研究设计，并进行了分析方法。CochraneQ和I2统计量用于评估组内和组间异质性。
结果：这篇meta分析纳入了7篇文章，共343例患者。[18F]FDGPET/CT的灵敏度为0.82（95％CI：0.63-0.96），[18F]FDGPET/MRI为0.91（95％CI：0.82-0.98）；两种方法之间没有显着差异（P=0.32）。同样，两种方法均显示相同的特异性：[18F]FDGPET/CT为1.00（95％CI：0.95-1.00），[18F]FDGPET/MRI为1.00（95％CI：0.96-1.00），因此，方法间差异无统计学意义(P=0.41)。此外，亚组分析显示无差异.Meta回归分析显示种族是[18F]FDGPET/CT异质性的潜在来源(P=0.01),而图像分析和造影剂被发现是[18F]FDGPET/MRI异质性的潜在来源（P=0.02）。
结论：[18F]FDGPET/MRI与[18F]FDGPET/CT在普通人群和亚组中具有相似的敏感性和特异性。[18F]FDGPET/CT可能是更具成本效益的选择。然而,由于纳入的研究数量有限，本荟萃分析的结论是初步的，和进一步的研究是必要的验证。
