Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 18F‑fluorothymidine versus 18F‑fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on pulmonary lesions: A meta analysis

Li,Xiao‑Feng; Dai,Dong; Song,Xiu‑Yu; Liu,Jian‑Jing; Zhu,Yan‑Jia; Xu,Wen‑Gui

doi:10.3892/mco.2014.440

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 18F‑fluorothymidine versus 18F‑fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on pulmonary lesions: A meta analysis

Authors:
- Xiao‑Feng Li
- Dong Dai
- Xiu‑Yu Song
- Jian‑Jing Liu
- Yan‑Jia Zhu
- Wen‑Gui Xu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Molecular Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin 300060, P.R. China
Published online on: October 9, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2014.440
Pages: 101-108

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

A pulmonary lesion is an extremely common and clinically challenging disorder worldwide, and an accurate diagnosis of lung cancer is crucial for early treatment and management. The aim of the present study was to perform a comprehensive meta analysis to compare the diagnostic performance of 18F‑fluorothymidine (18F‑FLT) positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F‑fluorodeoxyglucose (18F‑FDG) PET in evaluating patients with pulmonary lesions. Relevant studies were identified using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive‑likelihood ratio, negative‑likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for 18F‑FLT PET versus 18F‑FDG PET were calculated as the main outcome measures. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were also constructed by Meta‑Disk 1.4 software using a Mose's constant of linear model. The meta analysis showed that 18F‑FLT PET had a higher specificity (0.70; 95% CI, 0.61‑0.77), but lower sensitivity (0.81; 95% CI, 0.74‑0.87) compared to 18F‑FDG PET (0.50; 95% CI, 0.41‑0.58 for specificity; 0.92; 95% CI 0.86‑0.95 for sensitivity). For DOR, 18F‑FLT PET (12.58; 95% CI, 6.81‑23.24) was higher compared to 18F‑FDG PET (10.72; 95% CI, 5.51‑20.87). The area under the curve was 0.8592 and 0.9240 for 18F‑FLT PET and 18F‑FDG PET, respectively (Z=0.976, P>0.05). In conclusion, 18F‑FLT PET and 18F‑FDG PET had good diagnostic performance for the overall assessment of pulmonary lesions, and 18F‑FLT PET had a higher specificity compared to 18F‑FDG PET, but was less sensitive than 18F‑FDG PET. Therefore, 18F‑FLT and 18F‑FDG together could add diagnostic conﬁdence for pulmonary lesions.

View Figures

View References

1	Demura Y, Tsuchida T, Ishizaki T, et al: ¹⁸F-FDG accumulation with PET for differentiation between benign and malignant nodules in the thorax. J Nucl Med. 44:540–548. 2003.
2	Changlai SP, Tsai SC, Chou MC, Ho YJ and Kao CH: Whole body ¹⁸F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography to restage non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep. 8:337–339. 2001.
3	Kaira K, Yamamoto N, Endo M, et al: ¹⁸F-FDG uptake on PET is a predictive marker of thymidylate synthase expression in patients with thoracic neoplasms. Oncol Rep. 31:209–215. 2014.
4	Shreve PD, Anzai Y and Wahl RL: Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 19:61–77. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Lee TS, Ahn SH, Moon BS, et al: Comparison of ¹⁸F-FDG, ¹⁸F-FET and ¹⁸F-FLT for differentiation between tumor and inflammation in rats. Nucl Med Biol. 36:681–686. 2009.
6	Dittmann H, Dohmen BM, Paulsen F, et al: [18F] FLT PET for diagnosis and staging of thoracic tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 30:1407–1412. 2003.
7	Cobben DC, Elsinga PH, Hoekstra HJ, et al: Is ¹⁸F-3-Fluoro-3′-deoxy-L-thymidine useful for the staging and restaging of non-small cell lung cancer? J Nucl Med. 45:1677–1682. 2004.
8	Yap CS, Czernin J, Fishbein MC, et al: Evaluation of thoracic tumors with ¹⁸F-fluorothymidine and ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. Chest. 129:393–401. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
9	Grierson JR and Shields AF: Radiosynthesis of 3′-deoxy-3′-[(18)F]fluorothymidine: [(18)F]FLT for imaging of cellular proliferation in vivo. Nucl Med Biol. 27:143–156. 2000.
10	Buck AK, Halter G, Schirrmeister H, et al: Imaging proliferation in lung tumors with PET: ¹⁸ F-FLT versus ¹⁸ F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 44:1426–1431. 2003.PubMed/NCBI
11	Buck AK, Schirrmeister H, Hetzel M, et al: 3-deoxy-3-[¹⁸F] fluorothymidine-positron emission tomography for noninvasive assessment of proliferation in pulmonary nodules. Cancer Res. 62:3331–3334. 2002.
12	Vesselle H, Grierson J, Muzi M, et al: In vivo validation of 3-deoxy-3¹-[¹⁸F] fluorothymidine ([¹⁸F]FLT) as a proliferation imaging tracer in humans: correlation of [¹⁸F] FLT uptake by positron emission tomography with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry in human lung tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 8:3315–3332. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
13	Xu B, Guan Z, Liu C, et al: Can multimodality imaging using ¹⁸F-FDG/¹⁸F-FLT PET/CT benefit the diagnosis and management of patients with pulmonary nodules? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 38:285–292. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
14	Buck AK, Hetzel M, Schirrmeister H, et al: Clinical relevance of imaging proliferative activity in lung nodules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 32:525–533. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Halter G, Buck AK, Schirrmeister H, et al: [¹⁸F] 3-deoxy-3′ fluorothymidine positron emission tomography: alternative or diagnostic adjunct to 2-[¹⁸F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the workup of suspicious central focal nodules? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 127:1093–1099. 2004.
16	Tian J, Yang X, Yu L, et al: A multicenter clinical trial on the diagnostic value of dual-tracer PET/CT in pulmonary nodules using 3′-deoxy-3′-¹⁸F fluorothymidine and ¹⁸F-FDG. J Nucl Med. 49:186–194. 2008.PubMed/NCBI
17	Treglia G and Sadeghi R: Meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PET and PET-CT in oncology: the state of the art. Clin Transl Imaging. 1:73–75. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Xu G, Zhao L and He Z: Performance of whole-body PET/CT for the detection of distant malignancies in various cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 53:1847–1854. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	He YQ, Gong HL, Deng YF and Li WM: Diagnostic efficacy of PET and PET/CT for recurrent lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol. 55:309–317. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Kwee TC and Kwee RM: Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 19:731–744. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K and Coomarasamy A: Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 6:312006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Ishikawa S, et al: 3′-Deoxy-3′-¹⁸F-fluorothymidine as a proliferation imaging tracer for diagnosis of lung tumors: comparison with 2-deoxy-2-¹⁸F-fluoro-D-glucose. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 32:432–437. 2008.
23	Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ and Bossuyt PM: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 56:1129–1135. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Bunyaviroch T and Coleman RE: PET evaluation of lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 47:451–469. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
25	Mileshkin L, Hicks RJ, Hughes BG, et al: Changes in ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine positron emission tomography imaging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 17:3304–3315. 2011.
26	Kahraman D, Holstein A, Scheffler M, et al: Tumor lesion glycolysis and tumor lesion proliferation for response prediction and prognostic differentiation in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Nucl Med. 37:1058–1064. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
27	Kobe C, Scheffler M, Holstein A, et al: Predictive value of early and late residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorothymidine uptake using different SUV measurements in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 39:1117–1127. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Li XF, Huang T, Jiang HJ, et al: Combined injection of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 3′-deoxy-3′-[¹⁸F]-fluorothymidine PET achieves more complete identification of viable lung cancer cells in mice and patients than individual radiopharmaceutical: A proof-of-concept study. Transl Oncol. 6:775–783. 2013.
29	Xu BX, Liu CB, Wang RM, et al: The influence of interpreters' professional background and experience on the interpretation of multimodality imaging of pulmonary lesions using ¹⁸F-3′-deoxy-fluorothymidine and ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT. PLoS One. 8:e601042013.
30	Grégoire G, Derderian F and Le Lorier J: Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a tower of babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 48:159–163. 1995.PubMed/NCBI