Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
3985228 European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 2014 11 Pages PDF
Abstract

IntroductionPancreatic cancer is among the five most lethal malignancies in the world. Unfortunately, many malignant tumors go undetected by the current primary diagnostic tools. 18FDG-PET and 18FDG-PET/CT might be useful to confirm suspected pancreatic cancer.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed using all major search engines. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed as well as quality of the PET-protocol. The following pooled estimates served as primary outcome measures: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy.ResultsThirty-five studies were included. Pooled estimates for 18FDG-PET were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 90%, NPV 76% and accuracy 86%. Pooled estimates for 18FDG-PET/CT were: sensitivity 90%, specificity 76%, PPV 89%, NPV 78% and accuracy 86%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for 18FDG-PET to differentiate between pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis were 90% and 84%, respectively.ConclusionBoth 18FDG-PET and 18FDG-PET/CT offer no benefit over the current primary diagnostic tools in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. However, the 18FDG-PET/CT systems are still improving. We should investigate the sensitivity and specificity of these new systems while reevaluating the tradeoff between false positive and false negative results. Yet, 18FDG-PET/CT may have a role in the staging of pancreatic cancer, in survival prediction, and may add to other diagnostic information, like histology.

Related Topics
Health Sciences Medicine and Dentistry Oncology
Authors
, , , ,