A systematic comparison of 18F-FDOPA PET/CT with 18F-FDG PET/CT for diagnosis of brain tumors
HUANG Shiming1,2,LUO Yanwei2,3,LI Yanfeng1,YANG Yang1,YUE Jianlan1,and LIN Zhichun1
1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Logistics University of Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, Tianjin 300162, China; 2. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Remodeling and Target Organ Injury Institute of Cardiovascular Disease and Heart Center, Tianjin 300162,China; 3. Postgraduate Training Base in Affiliated Hospital of Logistics University of Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, Jinzhou Medical University,Jinzhou Liaoning 121000,China
Abstract：Objective To compare the diagnostic value of 18F-FDOPA and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan in patients with brain tumors by Meta analysis.Methods Data on diagnostic experiments related to the diagnostic value of 18F-FDOPA and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for brain tumors was retrieved from CNKI, CSJD, WanFang Database, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library by October 2016. The diagnostic value of 18F-FDOPA and 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for brain tumors was compared. Meta-DiSc 1.4 software was used to analyze the pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE),positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) under curve (AUC) the two different imaging agents.Results A total of four studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the results of 18F-FDOPA in diagnosis of brain tumors, the pooled SEN was 0.97(95%CI=0.90-1.00), SPE 0.67(95%CI=0.45-0.84),2.31(95%CI=1.40-3.81),0.07(95%CI=0.02-0.24), DOR 39.72(95%CI=8.94-176.48), SROC AUC 0.9725,and Q* value. According to the diagnostic results of 18F-FD, the pooled SEN was 0.51(95%CI=0.39-0.63),0.75(95%CI=0.53-0.90),2.31(95%CI=0.70-3.61),0.07(95%CI=0.47-0.86),DOR 2.55(95%CI=0.82-7.92), SROC AUC 0.5848,and Q* value was 0.5638.Conclusions 18F-FDOPA PET/CT imaging is more sensitive than 18F-FDG in the diagnosis of brain tumors.18F-FDOPA is of high diagnostic value for brain tumors and can be used as a reliable diagnostic method of brain tumors.
Ostrom Q T, Gittleman H, Farah P, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: Primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2006-2010[J]. Neuro Oncol, 2013, 15 (Sup 2):1-56.
[2]
Li Z, Yu Y, Zhang H, et al. A meta-analysis comparing 18F-FLT PET with 18F-FDG PET for assessment of brain tumor recurrence[J]. Nucl Med Commun, 2015, 36(7):695-701.
Okochi Y, Nihashi T, Fujii M, et al. Clinical use of (11)C-methionine and (18)F-FDG-PET for germinoma in central nervous system[J]. Ann Nucl Med, 2014, 28(2):94-102.
[5]
Van Waarde A ,Elsinga P H. Proliferation markers for the differential diagnosis of tumor and inflammation[J]. Curr Pharm Des, 2008, 14(31):3326-3339.
[6]
Zhao C, Zhang Y, Wang J. A meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of (18)F-FDG and (11)C-methionine PET for differentiating brain tumors[J]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2014, 35(6):1058-1065.
[7]
Calabria F,Cascini GL. Current status of 18F-DOPA PET imaging in the detection of brain tumor recurrence[J]. Hell J Nucl Med, 2014, 18(2):152-156.
[8]
Spence A M, Mankoff D A, Muzi M. Positron emission tomography imaging of brain tumors[J]. Neuroimaging Clin N Am, 2003, 13(4):717-739.
[9]
Glaudemans A W, Enting R H, Heesters M A, et al. Value of 11C-methionine PET in imaging brain tumours and metastases[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2013, 40(4):615-635.
[10]
Minn H, Kauhanen S, Seppanen M, et al. 18F-FDOPA: a multiple-target molecule[J]. J Nucl Med, 2009, 50(12):1915-1918.
[11]
Whiting P, Rutjes A W, Reitsma J B, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2003, 3(1):25.
Chen W, Silverman D H, Delaloye S, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET imaging of brain tumors: comparison study with 18F-FDG PET and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy[J]. J Nucl Med, 2006, 47(6):904-911.
[14]
Jora C, Mattakarottu J J, Aniruddha P G, et al. Comparative evaluation of 18F-FDOPA, 13N-AMMONIA, 18F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in primary brain tumors - A pilot study[J]. Indian J Nucl Med, 2011, 26(2):78-81.
[15]
Karunanithi S, Sharma P, Kumar A, et al. 18F-FDOPA PET/CT for detection of recurrence in patients with glioma: prospective comparison with 18F-FDG PET/CT[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2013, 40(7):1025-1035.
[16]
Tripathi M, Sharma R, D'Souza M, et al. Comparative evaluation of F-18 FDOPA, F-18 FDG, and F-18 FLT-PET/CT for metabolic imaging of low grade gliomas[J]. Clin Nucl Med, 2009, 34(12):878-883.
[17]
Lawal I and Sathekge M. F-18 FDG PET/CT imaging of cardiac and vascular inflammation and infection[J]. Br Med Bull, 2016, 120(1):55-74.
[18]
Struck A F, Hall L T, Kusmirek J E, et al. (18)F-DOPA PET with and without MRI fusion, a receiver operator characteristics comparison[J]. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2012, 2(4):475-482.
[19]
Scherfler C, Esterhammer R, Nocker M, et al. Correlation of dopaminergic terminal dysfunction and microstructural abnormalities of the basal ganglia and the olfactory tract in Parkinson's disease[J]. Brain, 2013, 136(10):3028-3037.
[20]
Oehme L, Perick M, Beuthien-Baumann B, et al. Comparison of dopamine turnover, dopamine influx constant and activity ratio of striatum and occipital brain with 18F-dopa brain PET in normal controls and patients with Parkinson’s disease[J]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2011, 38(8):1550-1559.
[21]
Fueger B J, Czernin J, Cloughesy T, et al. Correlation of 6-18F-fluoro-L-dopa PET uptake with proliferation and tumor grade in newly diagnosed and recurrent gliomas[J]. J Nucl Med, 2010, 51(10):1532-1538.
[22]
Pafundi D H, Laack N N, Youland R S, et al. Biopsy validation of 18F-DOPA PET and biodistribution in gliomas for neurosurgical planning and radiotherapy target delineation: results of a prospective pilot study[J]. Neuro-oncology, 2013, 15(8):1058-1067.
[23]
Becherer A, Karanikas G, Szabó M, et al. Brain tumour imaging with PET: a comparison between [18F] fluorodopa and [11C] methionine[J]. Eur JNucl Med Mol Imaging, 2003,30(11):1561-1567.
2017, Vol. 28 
