18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has been an important modality for detecting malignancies. Recently, an increasing number of studies reported the utility of FDG-PET parameters in predicting clinical outcomes and treatment assessment in variety of cancers. We aimed at clarifying both the prognostic role and assessment value of FDG-PET in pancreatic carcinoma.
We systematically searched electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify relevant studies to conduct this meta-analysis. Comparative analyses of the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were performed to assess the utility of FDG-PET parameters in prognosis evaluation and treatment assessment by random-effect model.
Twenty-three studies with 1762 patients met the inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that greater maximum standardized uptake value of the primary tumor was significantly correlated with poorer overall survival (HR, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–1.50; P < 0.001). Besides, greater reduction of maximum standardized uptake value after treatments indicated significant better overall survival (HR, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.47–0.98; P = 0.037).
18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters might be helpful not only for predicting survival outcome but also for selecting potentially efficacious treatments in patients with pancreatic carcinoma.
From the Departments of *Pancreatic Surgery
†Nuclear Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Received for publication March 5, 2019; accepted July 2, 2019.
Address correspondence to: Bole Tian, MD, Department of Pancreatic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No 37 Guoxue Rd, Wuhou District, Chengdu, China 610041 (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
This study was supported by “1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University,” and “Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province (Number 2018SZ0012).”
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Online date: August 12, 2019