Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET) in the detection of bladder lesions. Methods: We conducted a systematic PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase database search of articles published before November 2012. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were pooled. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was also used to summarize overall test performance. All meta-analyses were performed using the Meta-DiSc software (version 1.4). Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET or PET/CT for the detection of bladder cancer was 80.0% (95% CI: 71.0-87.0%) and 84.0% (95% CI: 69.0-93.0%), respectively. The overall positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were 3.47 (95% CI: 1.03-11.65), 0.31 (95% CI: 0.13-0.70) and 13.86 (95% CI: 2.84-67.74), respectively. Besides, the area (± standard error) under the symmetrical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8574 ± 0.0704. Conclusion: When compared with results of MRI and CT published by other studies, 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT showed no superiority in detecting local bladder lesions. As a whole body imaging, it is suggested that PET is more appropriate for the detection of metastasis.

Keywords:
Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose, Positron emission tomography, Meta-analysis, Bladder cancer
1.
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10-29.
2.
Kim JK, Park SY, Ahn HJ, Kim CS, Cho KS: Bladder cancer: analysis of multi-detector row helical CT enhancement pattern and accuracy in tumor detection and perivesical staging. Radiology 2004;231:725-731.
3.
Paik ML, Scolieri MJ, Brown SL, Spirnak JP, Resnick MI: Limitations of computerized tomography in staging invasive bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. J Urol 2000;163:1693-1696.
4.
Yaman O, Baltaci S, Arikan N, Yilmaz E, Gögüs O: Staging with computed tomography, transrectal ultrasonography and transurethral resection of bladder tumour: comparison with final pathological stage in invasive bladder carcinoma. Br J Urol 1996;78:197-200.
5.
Baltaci S, Resorlu B, Yagci C, Turkolmez K, Gogus C, Beduk Y: Computerized tomography for detecting perivesical infiltration and lymph node metastasis in invasive bladder carcinoma. Urol Int 2008;81:399-402.
6.
Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, Altman H, Keidar Z, Israel O: Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1200-1209.
7.
Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF, Freudenberg LS: Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4357-4368.
8.
Reitsma JB, Rutjes AWS, Whiting P: Chapter 9: Assessing methodological quality; in Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, version 1.0.0. Oxford, UK, Cochrane Collaboration, 2009, pp 1-27.
9.
Lu YY, Chen JH, Liang JA, Wang HY, Lin CC, Lin WY, Kao CH: Clinical value of FDG PET or PET/CT in urinary bladder cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2411-2416.
10.
Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM: The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1129-1135.
11.
Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A: Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:31.
12.
Kosuda S, Kison PV, Greenough R, Grossman HB, Wahl RL: Preliminary assessment of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24:615-620.
13.
Anjos DA, Etchebehere EC, Ramos CD, Santos AO, Albertotti C, Camargo EE: 18F-FDG PET/CT delayed images after diuretic for restaging invasive bladder cancer. J Nucl Med 2007;48:764-770.
14.
Harkirat S, Anand S, Jacob M: Forced diuresis and dual-phase F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT scan for restaging of urinary bladder cancers. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2010;20:13-19.
15.
Lodde M, Lacombe L, Friede J, Morin F, Saourine A, Fradet Y: Evaluation of fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography with computed tomography for staging of urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int 2010;106:658-663.
16.
Mertens LS, Bruin NM, Vegt E, de Blok WM, Fioole-Bruining A, van Rhijn BW, Horenblas S, Vogel WV: Catheter-assisted 18F-FDG-PET/CT imaging of primary bladder cancer: a prospective study. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:1195-1201.
17.
Yang Z, Cheng J, Pan L, Hu S, Xu J, Zhang Y, Wang M, Zhang J, Ye D, Zhang Y: Is whole-body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT plus additional pelvic images (oral hydration-voiding-refilling) useful for detecting recurrent bladder cancer? Ann Nucl Med 2012;26:571-577.
18.
Weissleder R: Molecular imaging in cancer. Science 2006;312:1168-1171.
19.
Hoffman JM, Gambhir SS: Molecular imaging: the vision and opportunity for radiology in the future. Radiology 2007;244:39-47.
20.
Czernin J, Weber WA, Herschman HR: Molecular imaging in the development of cancer therapeutics. Annu Rev Med 2006;57:99-118.
21.
Jager PL, de Korte MA, Lub-de Hooge MN, van Waarde A, Koopmans KP, Perik PJ, de Vries EG: Molecular imaging: what can be used today. Cancer Imaging 2005;5(Spec No A):S27-S32.
22.
Drieskens O, Oyen R, Van Poppel H, Vankan Y, Flamen P, Mortelmans L: FDG-PET for preoperative staging of bladder cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:1412-1417.
23.
Schöder H, Larson SM: Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:274-292.
24.
Swinnen G, Maes A, Pottel H, Vanneste A, Billiet I, Lesage K, Werbrouck P: FDG-PET/CT for the preoperative lymph node staging of invasive bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:641-647.
25.
de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Jongen MM, Mensink HJ, Vaalburg W: Visualisation of bladder cancer using (11)C-choline PET: first clinical experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:1283-1288.
26.
Koyama K, Okamura T, Kawabe J, Ozawa N, Torii K, Umesaki N, Miyama M, Ochi H, Yamada R: Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET with bladder irrigation in patients with uterine and ovarian tumors. J Nucl Med 2003;44:353-358.
27.
Sugawara Y, Eisbruch A, Kosuda S, Recker BE, Kison PV, Wahl RL: Evaluation of FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1125-1131.
28.
Totaro A, Pinto F, Brescia A, Racioppi M, Cappa E, D'Agostino D, Volpe A, Sacco E, Palermo G, Valentini A, Bassi P: Imaging in bladder cancer: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 2010;85:373-380.
29.
Qu X, Huang X, Wu L, Huang G, Ping X, Yan W: Comparison of virtual cystoscopy and ultrasonography for bladder cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:188-197.
30.
Yang Z, Pan L, Cheng J, Hu S, Xu J, Ye D, Zhang Y: Clinical value of whole body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection of metastatic bladder cancer. Int J Urol 2012;19:639-644.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.