%0 Comparative Study
%T [18F]FDG PET/CT versus [18F]FDG PET/MRI in the evaluation of liver metastasis in patients with primary cancer: A head-to-head comparative meta-analysis.
%A Shi Y
%A Yu H
%A Zhang X
%A Xu X
%A Tuo H
%J Clin Imaging
%V 112
%N 0
%D 2024 Aug 31
%M 38833916
%F 2.42
%R 10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110209
%X <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>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.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>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.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>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).<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>[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.