TY - JOUR
T1 - 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT in Vulvar Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
AU - Triumbari, Elizabeth K.A.
AU - De Koster, Elizabeth J.
AU - Rufini, Vittoria
AU - Fragomeni, Simona Maria
AU - Garganese, Giorgia
AU - Collarino, Angela
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Aim: The aims of this study were to determine the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients and to extract summary estimates of its diagnostic performance for preoperative lymph node staging.
Patients and methods: PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify studies evaluating 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients. The assessment of methodological quality of the included articles was performed. Per-patient and per-groin pooled estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated.
Results: Ten articles were included in the systematic review, 7 among which evaluated the diagnostic performance of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging. Qualitative per-patient analysis (72 patients from 4 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.76-1.04), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56-0.97), and 10.49 (95% CI, 1.68-65.50), respectively. Qualitative per-groin analysis (245 groins from 5 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 19.43 (95% CI, 6.40-58.95), respectively.
Conclusions: Despite limited literature data, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that a negative preoperative PET/CT scan may exclude groin metastases in at least early-stage vulvar cancer patients currently unfit for sentinel node biopsy and select those eligible for a less invasive surgical treatment. A positive PET/CT result should otherwise be interpreted with caution. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to evaluate the diagnostic value of standardized semiquantitative analysis compared with the qualitative one.
AB - Aim: The aims of this study were to determine the role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients and to extract summary estimates of its diagnostic performance for preoperative lymph node staging.
Patients and methods: PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify studies evaluating 18F-FDG PET/CT in vulvar cancer patients. The assessment of methodological quality of the included articles was performed. Per-patient and per-groin pooled estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated.
Results: Ten articles were included in the systematic review, 7 among which evaluated the diagnostic performance of preoperative 18F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging. Qualitative per-patient analysis (72 patients from 4 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.76-1.04), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.66-1.06), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56-0.97), and 10.49 (95% CI, 1.68-65.50), respectively. Qualitative per-groin analysis (245 groins from 5 studies) resulted in estimated pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and DOR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.94), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55-0.85), 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 19.43 (95% CI, 6.40-58.95), respectively.
Conclusions: Despite limited literature data, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that a negative preoperative PET/CT scan may exclude groin metastases in at least early-stage vulvar cancer patients currently unfit for sentinel node biopsy and select those eligible for a less invasive surgical treatment. A positive PET/CT result should otherwise be interpreted with caution. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to evaluate the diagnostic value of standardized semiquantitative analysis compared with the qualitative one.
KW - Female
KW - Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
KW - Humans
KW - Neoplasm Staging
KW - Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
KW - Vulvar Neoplasms
KW - Female
KW - Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
KW - Humans
KW - Neoplasm Staging
KW - Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
KW - Vulvar Neoplasms
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/167260
U2 - 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003411
DO - 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003411
M3 - Article
SN - 0363-9762
VL - 46
SP - 125
EP - 132
JO - Clinical Nuclear Medicine
JF - Clinical Nuclear Medicine
ER -