Positron emission tomography alone, positron emission tomography-computed tomography and computed tomography in diagnosing recurrent cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to assess systematically the accuracies of positron emission tomography (PET), PET/computed tomography (CT), and CT in diagnosing recurrent cervical cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched for articles published from January 1980 to June 2013 using the following inclusion criteria: articles were reported in English; the use of PET, interpreted with or without the use of CT; use of CT to detect recurrent cervical cancer; and histopathologic analysis and/or close clinical and imaging follow-up for at least 6 months. We extracted data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, summary receiver operating characteristic curves, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as well as test for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In 23 included studies, PET had the highest pooled specificity at 92% (95% CI: 90-94), whereas PET/CT had the highest pooled sensitivity at 94% (95% CI: 90-97). The area under the curve (AUC) of PET alone, PET/CT, and CT were 0.9594, 0.9508, and 0.9363, respectively. Results of the pairwise comparison between each modality show that the specificity of PET was higher than that of PET/CT (p < 0.05). The difference in the pooled sensitivities and AUC of PET alone and PET/CT showed no statistical significance. No evidence of publication bias was found. However, evidence of heterogeneity was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The PET/CT may be a useful supplement to current surveillance techniques, particularly for patients with negative CT imaging. However, in terms of diagnostic accuracy, interpreted CT images may have limited additional value to PET in detecting recurrent cervical cancer.