Twelve studies were included in the review. The total numbers of participants and lesions studied were not clear.
The results of the quality assessment were reported in full. Common areas of concern were: description of exclusion criteria; avoidance of selection bias; blinding of test interpretation to other test results and clinical information; reporting of reproducibility.
Diagnostic accuracy of AC and NAC FDG-PET.
The pooled per-patient sensitivities of AC and NAC FR-PET were 64% (95% confidence interval, CI: 52, 74) and 62% (95% CI: 51, 73), respectively (3 studies, 182 patients). The pooled per-patient specificities of AC and NAC FR-PET were 97% (95% CI: 92, 99) and 99% (95% CI: 95, 100), respectively (2 studies, 155 patients). One study (not reported) provided sensitivity and specificity data for DH-PET.
Relative lesion detection with NAC versus AC FDG-PET.
Relative lesion detection of NAC FR-PET versus AC FR-PET was 98% (95% CI: 96, 99; 7 studies, 1,012 lesions). Relative lesion detection of NAC DH-PET versus AC DH-PET was 88% (95% CI: 81, 94; 4 studies, 288 lesions). For FR-PET and DH-PET individually, the relative lesion detection of NAC versus AC was similar across body sites (head/neck, chest and abdomen/pelvis). However, relative lesion detection (NAC versus AC) in the chest and in the abdomen/pelvis was significantly lower with DH-PET than with FR-PET.