The diagnostic accuracy of O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine parameters for the differentiation of brain tumour progression from treatment-related changes. Issue 3 (31st January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Diao, Wei; Su, Dunyan; Cao, Yuan; Jia, Zhiyun
• Is Part Of: Nuclear medicine communications. Volume 43:Issue 3(2022)
• Page Start: 350
• Page End: 358
• Publication Date: 2022-01-31
• Subjects: 18F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine -- brain tumour -- diagnostic accuracy -- meta-analysis -- PET -- pseudoprogression; Nuclear medicine -- Periodicals; 616.07575
• DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001524
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0143-3636

Abstract

Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Abstract : Background: 18 F-fluoro-ethyl-tyrosine ( 18 F-FET) is recommended to distinguish brain tumours post-therapeutic true progression (including recurrent and metastatic brain tumours) and treatment-related change (TRC). However, many parameters of 18 F-FET can be used for this differential diagnosis. Our purpose was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of various 18 F-FET parameters to differentiate true progression from TRC. Methods: We performed a literature search using the following databases: the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases up to 29 November 2020. We included studies that reported the diagnostic test results of 18 F-FET to distinguish true progression from TRC. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The diagnostic accuracy of various parameters was pooled using a random-effects model. Results: We included 17 eligible studies (nine parameters). For static parameters of 18 F-FET, the maximum and mean tumour-to-brain ratios (TBRmax and TBRmean ) showed similar pooled sensitivities of 82% [95% confidence interval (CI), 80–85%) and 82% (95% CI, 78–85%), respectively. Among the three kinetic parameters (slope, time to peak and kinetic pattern), the kinetic pattern presented the optimal diagnostic value with a pooled sensitivity of 81% (95% CI, 75–86%). When combining the static and kinetic parameters, the diagnostic performance of 18 F-FET was significantly improved, with a pooled sensitivity of 90% (95% CI, 84–94%) in the combination of TBR and kinetic patterns. Conclusions: 18 F-FET static parameters alone showed a comparably high sensitivity in the differentiation between brain tumour true progression and TRC. Combining static and kinetic parameters provided improved diagnostic performance.