Smailagic Nadja, Vacante Marco, Hyde Chris, Martin Steven, Ukoumunne Obioha, Sachpekidis Christos
Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK, CB2 0SR.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 28;1(1):CD010632. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010632.pub2.
¹⁸F-FDFG uptake by brain tissue as measured by positron emission tomography (PET) is a well-established method for assessment of brain function in people with dementia. Certain findings on brain PET scans can potentially predict the decline of mild cognitive Impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease dementia or other dementias.
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the ¹⁸F-FDG PET index test for detecting people with MCI at baseline who would clinically convert to Alzheimer's disease dementia or other forms of dementia at follow-up.
We searched the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO, BIOSIS previews, LILACS, MEDION, (Meta-analyses van Diagnostisch Onderzoek), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), HTA (Health Technology Assessment Database), ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility) and C-EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee for Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine) databases to January 2013. We checked the reference lists of any relevant studies and systematic reviews for additional studies.
We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ¹⁸F-FDG PET to determine the conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia or to other forms of dementia, i.e. any or all of vascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, and fronto-temporal dementia. These studies necessarily employ delayed verification of conversion to dementia and are sometimes labelled as 'delayed verification cross-sectional studies'.
Two blinded review authors independently extracted data, resolving disagreement by discussion, with the option to involve a third review author as arbiter if necessary. We extracted and summarised graphically the data for two-by-two tables. We conducted exploratory analyses by plotting estimates of sensitivity and specificity from each study on forest plots and in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space. When studies had mixed thresholds, we derived estimates of sensitivity and likelihood ratios at fixed values (lower quartile, median and upper quartile) of specificity from the hierarchical summary ROC (HSROC) models.
We included 14 studies (421 participants) in the analysis. The sensitivities for conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia were between 25% and 100% while the specificities were between 15% and 100%. From the summary ROC curve we fitted we estimated that the sensitivity was 76% (95% confidence interval (CI): 53.8 to 89.7) at the included study median specificity of 82%. This equates to a positive likelihood ratio of 4.03 (95% CI: 2.97 to 5.47), and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.75). Three studies recruited participants from the same Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort but only the largest ADNI study (Herholz 2011) is included in the meta-analysis. In order to demonstrate whether the choice of ADNI study or discriminating brain region (Chételat 2003) or reader assessment (Pardo 2010) make a difference to the pooled estimate, we performed five additional analyses. At the median specificity of 82%, the estimated sensitivity was between 74% and 76%. There was no impact on our findings. In addition to evaluating Alzheimer's disease dementia, five studies evaluated the accuracy of ¹⁸F-FDG PET for all types of dementia. The sensitivities were between 46% and 95% while the specificities were between 29% and 100%; however, we did not conduct a meta-analysis because of too few studies, and those studies which we had found recruited small numbers of participants. Our findings are based on studies with poor reporting, and the majority of included studies had an unclear risk of bias, mainly for the reference standard and participant selection domains. According to the assessment of Index test domain, more than 50% of studies were of poor methodological quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to determine to what extent the findings from the meta-analysis can be applied to clinical practice. Given the considerable variability of specificity values and lack of defined thresholds for determination of test positivity in the included studies, the current evidence does not support the routine use of ¹⁸F-FDG PET scans in clinical practice in people with MCI. The ¹⁸F-FDG PET scan is a high-cost investigation, and it is therefore important to clearly demonstrate its accuracy and to standardise the process of ¹⁸F-FDG PET diagnostic modality prior to its being widely used. Future studies with more uniform approaches to thresholds, analysis and study conduct may provide a more homogeneous estimate than the one available from the included studies we have identified.
正电子发射断层扫描(PET)测量的脑组织¹⁸F-FDG摄取是评估痴呆患者脑功能的一种成熟方法。脑PET扫描的某些结果有可能预测轻度认知障碍(MCI)向阿尔茨海默病痴呆或其他痴呆的进展。
确定¹⁸F-FDG PET指数测试在检测基线时患有MCI且在随访时临床上会转变为阿尔茨海默病痴呆或其他形式痴呆的人群中的诊断准确性。
我们检索了Cochrane诊断试验准确性研究注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、科学引文索引、PsycINFO、BIOSIS预评、LILACS、MEDION、(诊断研究的荟萃分析)、DARE(效应综述摘要数据库)、HTA(卫生技术评估数据库)、ARIF(积极研究情报设施)和C-EBLM(国际临床化学与检验医学联合会循证检验医学委员会)数据库,检索至2013年1月。我们检查了任何相关研究和系统评价的参考文献列表以寻找其他研究。
我们纳入了评估¹⁸F-FDG PET诊断准确性以确定从MCI转变为阿尔茨海默病痴呆或其他形式痴呆的研究,即血管性痴呆、路易体痴呆和额颞叶痴呆中的任何一种或全部。这些研究必然采用对痴呆转变的延迟验证,有时被标记为“延迟验证横断面研究”。
两位盲法综述作者独立提取数据,通过讨论解决分歧,如有必要可选择让第三位综述作者作为仲裁者。我们提取并以图表形式总结了四格表数据。我们通过在森林图和受试者工作特征(ROC)空间中绘制每项研究的敏感性和特异性估计值进行探索性分析。当研究有混合阈值时,我们从分层汇总ROC(HSROC)模型中得出在特异性的固定值(下四分位数、中位数和上四分位数)处的敏感性和似然比估计值。
我们纳入了14项研究(421名参与者)进行分析。从MCI转变为阿尔茨海默病痴呆的敏感性在25%至100%之间,而特异性在15%至100%之间。根据我们拟合的汇总ROC曲线,我们估计在纳入研究的中位数特异性82%时,敏感性为76%(95%置信区间(CI):53.8至89.7)。这相当于阳性似然比为4.03(95%CI:2.97至5.47),阴性似然比为0.34(95%CI:0.15至0.75)。三项研究从同一阿尔茨海默病神经影像倡议(ADNI)队列中招募参与者,但荟萃分析中仅纳入了最大的ADNI研究(Herholz 2011)。为了证明选择ADNI研究、区分脑区(Chételat 2003)或读者评估(Pardo 2010)是否会对汇总估计产生影响,我们进行了另外五项分析。在中位数特异性82%时,估计敏感性在74%至76%之间。对我们的结果没有影响。除了评估阿尔茨海默病痴呆外,五项研究评估了¹⁸F-FDG PET对所有类型痴呆的准确性。敏感性在46%至95%之间,特异性在29%至100%之间;然而,由于研究数量过少,我们未进行荟萃分析,而且我们找到的那些研究招募的参与者数量较少。我们基于报告质量较差的研究,纳入的大多数研究存在偏倚风险不明确的情况,主要是在参考标准和参与者选择领域。根据指数测试领域的评估,超过50%的研究方法学质量较差。
难以确定荟萃分析的结果在多大程度上可应用于临床实践。鉴于纳入研究中特异性值的显著变异性以及缺乏确定测试阳性的明确阈值,当前证据不支持在MCI患者的临床实践中常规使用¹⁸F-FDG PET扫描。¹⁸F-FDG PET扫描是一项高成本的检查,因此在其被广泛使用之前,明确证明其准确性并规范¹⁸F-FDG PET诊断方式的过程非常重要。未来采用更统一的阈值、分析和研究方法的研究可能会提供比我们所纳入研究更一致的估计。