FDG-PET in diagnosis, staging and prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies for diagnosis

Ref.	Study design	Imaging	Population	n (M/F)	Results
					TP	FP	FN	TN
Stollfuss et al[32]	NR	PET	Suspected PC or CP	73 (54/19)	41	3	2	27
Wang et al[33]	NR	PET	Pancreatic mass	40 (27/13)	26	3	1	10
Rose et al[34]	R	PET	Suspected PC	65 (NR)	48	2	4	11
Kauhanen et al[18]	P	PET	Suspected PC	38 (19/19)	17	3	1	17
Herrmann et al[35]	P	PET	Suspected PC or CP	41 (27/14)	30	4	3	4
		PET/CT		31 (NR)	24	5	1	1
Nakamoto et al[36]	P	PET	Suspected PC	47 (31/16)	22	3	5	17
Friess et al[37]	P	PET	Suspected PC or CP	74 (57/17)	41	4	1	28
Keogan et al[38]	P	PET	Suspected PC	37 (22/15)	22	2	3	10
Koyama et al[39]	NR	PET	Suspected PC	86 (50/36)	53	4	12	17
Nishiyama et al[19]	NR	PET	Suspected PC	86 (64/22)	49	11	6	20
Inokuma et al[40]	P	PET	Suspected PC	46 (25/21)	33	2	2	9
Bares et al[20]	P	PET	Suspected PC	40 (25/15)	25	2	2	11
Van et al[41]	NR	PET	Suspected PC or CP	109 (65/44)	29	10	3	67
Zimny et al[42]	P	PET	Suspected PC	106 (NR)	63	5	11	27
Kato et al[43]	NR	PET	Patients with PC or CP	24 (20/4)	14	2	1	7
Ruf et al[21]	R	PET	Suspected PC	32 (20/12)	14	10	1	7
Rasmussen et al[44]	P	PET	Suspected PC	20 (12/8)	9	1	3	7
Delbeke et al[45]	R	PET	Suspected PC	65 (33/32)	52	3	0	10
Farma et al[46]	R	PET/CT	Suspected PC	82 (43/39)	58	2	7	15
Borbath[25]	R	PET	Suspected PC	59 (29/30)	42	5	6	6
Sendler et al[47]	P	PET	Suspected PC	42 (21/21)	22	4	9	7
Bang et all[48]	NR	PET	Suspected PC	102 (76/26)	90	2	3	7
Papós et al[49]	NR	PET	Suspected PC	22 (13/9)	6	2	0	14
Rajput et al[50]	R	PET	Suspected PC	11 (NR)	8	0	1	2
Ho et al[51]	NR	PET	Suspected PC	14 (7/7)	8	2	0	4
Mertz et al[52]	P	PET	Suspected PC	35 (NR)	27	2	4	2
Takanami et al[53]	R	PET/CT	Suspected PC	16 (13/3)	7	0	2	7
Sperti et al[54]	P	PET	Suspected PC	64 (33/31)	24	1	2	37
Tann et al[55]	R	PET	Suspected PC	30 (16/14)	4	8	3	15
		PET/CT		30 (16/14)	6	2	1	21
Bares et al[56]	NR	PET	Suspected PC	15 (11/4)	12	0	1	2

M: Male; F: Female; NR: Not report; R: Retrospective study; P: Prospective; PC: Pancreatic carcinoma; CP: Chronic pancreatitis; TP: True-positive; FP: False-positive; FN: False-negative; TN: True-negative; PET: Positron emission tomography; CT: Computed tomography.

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies for N staging

Ref.	Study design	Imaging method	Population	n (M/F)	Results
					TP	FP	FN	TN
Kauhanen et al[18]	P	PET	Histologically proved PC	8 (NR)	2	0	5	1
Nishiyama et al[19]	NR	PET	PC diagnosed by histology or follow-up	55 (NR)	14	1	6	34
Bares et al[20]	P	PET	Histologically proved PC	23 (NR)	10	2	3	8
Ruf et al[21]	R	PET	PC diagnosed by histology or follow-up	15 (9/6)	8	2	5	0

M: Male; F: Female; NR: Not report; R: Retrospective study; P: Prospective; PC: Pancreatic carcinoma; TP: True-positive; FP: False-positive; FN: False-negative; TN: True-negative; PET: Positron emission tomography.

Table 3 Characteristics of included studies for liver metastasis

Ref.	Study design	Imaging	Population	n (M/F)	Results
					TP	FP	FN	TN
Strobel et al[22]	R	PET	Histologically proved PC	50 (25/25)	5	0	6	39
		PET/CT		50 (25/25)	9	1	2	38
Nakamoto et al[23]	NR	PET	Histologically proved PC	34 (22/12)	11	2	1	20
Nishiyama et al[24]	NR	PET	Histologically proved PC	42 (26/16)	10	3	3	26
Nishiyama et al[19]	NR	PET	PC diagnosed by histology or follow-up	55 (NR)	11	0	7	37
Bares et al[20]	P	PET	Histologically proved PC	23 (NR)	4	1	3	15
Ruf et al[21]	R	PET	PC diagnosed by histology or follow-up	15 (9/6)	3	2	5	5
Borbath et al[25]	R	PET	PC diagnosed by histology or follow-up	47 (NR)	10	1	2	34

M: Male; F: Female; NR: Not report; R: Retrospective study; P: Prospective; PC: Pancreatic carcinoma; TP: True-positive; FP: False-positive; FN: False-negative; TN: True-negative; PET: Positron emission tomography.

Table 4 Characteristics of included studies for prognosis

Ref.	Study design	Imaging method	Population	n (M/F)	Follow-up period	HR (95%CI)
Sperti et al[26]	R	PET	Histologically proved PC	60 (34/26)	NR	3.96 (1.92-8.17)
Maisey et al[27]	P	PET	Histologically proved PC	11 (7/4)	NR	3.4 (2.01-5.73)
Zimny et al[28]	NR	PET	Histologically proved PC	52 (33/19)	NR	2.27 (1.69-3.05)
Nakata et al[29]	NR	PET	Histologically proved PC	37 (21/16)	NR	0.93 (0.70, 1.25)1
						4.9 (1.19-20.2)2
Maemura et al[30]	NR	PET	PC diagnosed by histology or follow-up	24 (NR)	NR	2.1 (1.5-2.92)
Nakata et al[31]	NR	PET	Histologically proved PC	14 (NR)	6-17 mo	2.99 (2.25-3.97)

¹Patients received operation;

²Patients did not receive operation. M: Male; F: Female; NR: Not report; R: Retrospective study; P: Prospective; PC: Pancreatic carcinoma; PET: Positron emission tomography.

Table 5 Results of meta-analysis

Groups	Diagnosis		N staging			Liver metastasis		Prognosis
	Sen (95%CI)	Spe (95%CI)	Sen (95%CI)	Spe (95%CI)	Pv- (95%CI)	Sen (95%CI)	Spe (95%CI)	HR (95%CI)
Overall	0.91 (0.88-0.93)	0.81 (0.75-0.85)	0.64 (0.50-0.76)	0.81 (0.25-0.85)	0.65 (0.28-0.90)	0.67 (0.52-0.79)	0.96 (0.89-0.98)
P subgroup	0.89 (0.84-0.92)	0.84 (0.76-0.89)	0.56 (0.15-0.90)	0.79 (0.48-0.94)	-	0.57 (0.21-0.88)	0.94 (0.68-0.99)	2.39 (1.57-3.63)
R subgroup	0.90 (0.83-0.95)	0.75 (0.58-0.87)	0.61 (0.32-0.85)	0.17 (0.04-0.81)	-	0.56 (0.28-0.81)	0.94 (0.65-0.99)	3.40 (2.01-5.74)
NR subgroup	0.93 (0.88-0.96)	0.82 (0.74-0.87)	0.70 (0.46-0.87)	0.97 (0.84-0.99)	-	0.74 (0.52-0.88)	0.92 (0.83-0.96)	3.96 (1.92-8.17)
PET subgroup	0.91 (0.88-0.93)	0.80 (0.74-0.85)	-	-	-	0.67 (0.52-0.79)	0.96 (0.89-0.98)	2.06 (1.26-3.36)
PET/CT subgroup	0.90 (0.79-0.95)	0.85 (0.38-0.98)	-	-	-	0.82 (0.48-0.98)	0.97 (0.87-1.00)	-

N: Lymph node; P: Prospective; R: Retrospective; NR: Not reporting; Sen: Sensitivity; Spe: Specificity; Pv-: Negative predictive value; PET: Positron emission tomography; CT: Computed tomography.