Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Diagnostic performance of 18F‑DCFPyL PET vs. 68Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Diagnostic performance of 18F‑DCFPyL PET vs. 68Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Diagnostic performance of 18F‑DCFPyL PET vs. 68Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Diagnostic performance of 18F‑DCFPyL PET vs. 68Ga‑PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected prostate cancer: A systemic review and meta‑analysis
2024
Overview
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the diagnostic performance of 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT was compared with that of 18F-DCFPyL PET for patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Up to September 2023, the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases were thoroughly searched for relevant papers. Studies examining the diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with suspected PCa were included in the present review. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies-2 tool was used to rate the diagnostic performance of each study. The diagnostic performance of 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT for primary PCa was examined by 13 studies included, comprising 1,178 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of 18F-DCFPyL PET were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.08-0.96), respectively. For 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.88-0.99) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57-0.82), respectively. 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT both had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94). In addition, the Fagan nomogram revealed that the post-test probabilities for 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT could rise to 69 and 77% when the pre-test probability was set at 50%. In conclusion, a comparable diagnostic performance for patients with suspected PCa was determined for 18F-DCFPyL PET and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the findings of the present meta-analysis come from investigations with modest sample sizes. Therefore, more extensive research is required to obtain more solid data.
Publisher
D.A. Spandidos,Spandidos Publications UK Ltd
Subject
