open access

Vol 26 (2023): Continuous Publishing
Research paper
Submitted: 2022-05-30
Accepted: 2022-09-04
Published online: 2022-12-28
Get Citation

Thoracic staging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT

Batool Shahraki Mojahed1, Khadije Saravani1, Fateme Parooie1
·
Pubmed: 36584217
·
Nucl. Med. Rev 2023;26:11-19.
Affiliations
  1. Zabol University of Medical Sciences, Zabol, Iran

open access

Vol 26 (2023): Continuous Publishing
Original articles
Submitted: 2022-05-30
Accepted: 2022-09-04
Published online: 2022-12-28

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/MR versus [18F]FDG PET/CT in the thoracic staging of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLS).

Material and methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) were followed in conducting the present study. All available research was collected through Embase (Elsevier), PubMed, as well as Cochrane Library databases up to June 2021. Only studies covering both [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT techniques in the same group were included. Statistical analysis was done using Stata v.12.

Results: The overall accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/CT in T and N staging was 92% (95% CI: 89–95 , I2 : 93.4%) and 78% (95% CI: 74–82 , I2 : 98.5%) respectively. While, the corresponding rates for [18F]FDG PET/MRI were 91% (95% CI: 88–94 , I2 : 96.5%) and 89% (95% CI: 84–94 , I2 : 88.1%) respectively.

Conclusions: The present meta-analysis showed that [18F]FDG PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/MRI exhibit relatively the same performance in detecting N and T stages in patients with NSCLC. Thus, [18F]FDG PET/MRI can be a worthy alternative for [18F]FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of advanced of NSCLC in the chest area, more specifically in N-staging, since it provides higher soft-tissue contrast. There is a need for more reliable research for comparing the diagnostic performance of these imaging techniques and various optimized [18F]FDG PET/MRI protocols.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/MR versus [18F]FDG PET/CT in the thoracic staging of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLS).

Material and methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) were followed in conducting the present study. All available research was collected through Embase (Elsevier), PubMed, as well as Cochrane Library databases up to June 2021. Only studies covering both [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT techniques in the same group were included. Statistical analysis was done using Stata v.12.

Results: The overall accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/CT in T and N staging was 92% (95% CI: 89–95 , I2 : 93.4%) and 78% (95% CI: 74–82 , I2 : 98.5%) respectively. While, the corresponding rates for [18F]FDG PET/MRI were 91% (95% CI: 88–94 , I2 : 96.5%) and 89% (95% CI: 84–94 , I2 : 88.1%) respectively.

Conclusions: The present meta-analysis showed that [18F]FDG PET/CT and [18F]FDG PET/MRI exhibit relatively the same performance in detecting N and T stages in patients with NSCLC. Thus, [18F]FDG PET/MRI can be a worthy alternative for [18F]FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of advanced of NSCLC in the chest area, more specifically in N-staging, since it provides higher soft-tissue contrast. There is a need for more reliable research for comparing the diagnostic performance of these imaging techniques and various optimized [18F]FDG PET/MRI protocols.

Get Citation

Keywords

non-small cell lung cancer; [18F]FDG PET/MRI; [18F]FDG PET/CT; thoracic staging

About this article
Title

Thoracic staging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis on diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/MRI and [18F]FDG PET/CT

Journal

Nuclear Medicine Review

Issue

Vol 26 (2023): Continuous Publishing

Article type

Research paper

Pages

11-19

Published online

2022-12-28

Page views

3018

Article views/downloads

536

DOI

10.5603/NMR.a2022.0037

Pubmed

36584217

Bibliographic record

Nucl. Med. Rev 2023;26:11-19.

Keywords

non-small cell lung cancer
[18F]FDG PET/MRI
[18F]FDG PET/CT
thoracic staging

Authors

Batool Shahraki Mojahed
Khadije Saravani
Fateme Parooie

References (33)
  1. Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343(4): 254–261.
  2. Manus MM, Hicks R, Matthews J, et al. High rate of detection of unsuspected distant metastases by PET in apparent stage III non–small-cell lung cancer: implications for radical radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2001; 50(2): 287–293.
  3. Tinteren Hv, Hoekstra O, Smit E, et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. The Lancet. 2002; 359(9315): 1388–1392.
  4. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(25): 2500–2507.
  5. Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology. 2003; 229(2): 526–533.
  6. Goeckenjan G, Sitter H, Thomas M, et al. German Respiratory Society, German Cancer Society. Prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of lung cancer: interdisciplinary guideline of the German Respiratory Society and the German Cancer Society. Pneumologie. 2011; 65(1): 39–59.
  7. Postmus PE, Kerr KM, Oudkerk M, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(suppl_4): iv1–iv21.
  8. De Leyn P, Dooms C, Kuzdzal J, et al. Revised ESTS guidelines for preoperative mediastinal lymph node staging for non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 45(5): 787–798.
  9. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(25): 2500–2507.
  10. Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology. 2003; 229(2): 526–533.
  11. Wang J, Welch K, Wang L, et al. Negative predictive value of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for stage T1-2N0 non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Lung Cancer. 2012; 13(2): 81–89.
  12. Ambrosini V, Fanti S, Chengazi VU, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of FDG PET/CT in mediastinal lymph nodes from lung cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83(8): 1301–1302.
  13. Sommer G, Wiese M, Winter L, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: comparison of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(12): 2859–2867.
  14. Roberts P, Follette D, Haag Dv, et al. Factors associated with false-positive staging of lung cancer by positron emission tomography. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000; 70(4): 1154–1159.
  15. Konishi J, Yamazaki K, Tsukamoto E, et al. Mediastinal lymph node staging by FDG-PET in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of false-positive FDG-PET findings. Respiration. 2003; 70(5): 500–506.
  16. Zhang R, Ying K, Shi L, et al. Combined endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for mediastinal lymph node staging of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49(8): 1860–1867.
  17. Tournoy KG, Maddens S, Gosselin R, et al. Integrated FDG-PET/CT does not make invasive staging of the intrathoracic lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer redundant: a prospective study. Thorax. 2007; 62(8): 696–701.
  18. Vial MR, O'Connell OJ, Grosu HB, et al. Diagnostic performance of endobronchial ultrasound-guided mediastinal lymph node sampling in early stage non-small cell lung cancer: A prospective study. Respirology. 2018; 23(1): 76–81.
  19. Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, et al. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3 cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images. Lung Cancer. 2004; 45(1): 19–27.
  20. Cheran S, Nielsen N, Patz E. False-Negative Findings for Primary Lung Tumors on FDG Positron Emission Tomography: Staging and Prognostic Implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 182(5): 1129–1132.
  21. Sawicki LM, Grueneisen J, Buchbender C, et al. Evaluation of the outcome of lung nodules missed on 18F-FDG PET/MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with known malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57(1): 15–20.
  22. Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, et al. Comparison of F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 45(4): 622–629.
  23. Novello S, Barlesi F, Califano R, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2016; 27(suppl 5): v1–v27.
  24. Postmus PE, Kerr KM, Oudkerk M, et al. ESMO Guidelines Committee. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(suppl_4): iv1–iv21.
  25. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, et al. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 1: tumors of the brain, head and neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(6): 928–938.
  26. Buchbender C, Heusner TA, Lauenstein TC, et al. Oncologic PET/MRI, part 2: bone tumors, soft-tissue tumors, melanoma, and lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(8): 1244–1252.
  27. Lee SM, Goo JMo, Park CM, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of PET/MR and PET/CT. Eur Radiol. 2016; 26(11): 3850–3857.
  28. Dahlsgaard-Wallenius SE, Hildebrandt MG, Johansen A, et al. Hybrid PET/MRI in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and lung nodules-a literature review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021; 48(2): 584–591.
  29. Kirchner J, Sawicki LM, Nensa F, et al. Prospective comparison of F-FDG PET/MRI and F-FDG PET/CT for thoracic staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46(2): 437–445.
  30. Heusch P, Buchbender C, Köhler J, et al. Thoracic staging in lung cancer: prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging and 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2014; 55(3): 373–378.
  31. Wang M, He Z, Hao-jun Y, et al. Comparison diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and PET/CT in evaluation of pleural invasion in patient with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2021; 62(supplement 1): 1029.
  32. Schaarschmidt B, Buchbender C, Gomez B, et al. Thoracic staging of non-small-cell lung cancer using integrated (18)F-FDG PET/MR imaging: diagnostic value of different MR sequences. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015; 42(8): 1257–1267.
  33. Schaarschmidt BM, Grueneisen J, Metzenmacher M, et al. Thoracic staging with F-FDG PET/MR in non-small cell lung cancer - does it change therapeutic decisions in comparison to F-FDG PET/CT? Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(2): 681–688.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., Świętokrzyska 73 street, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

phone: +48 58 320 94 94, fax: +48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl