Response to: Performance of 18F-FET-PET versus 18F-FDG-PET for the diagnosis and grading of brain tumors: inherent bias in meta-analysis not revealed by quality metrics.
Response to: Performance of 18F-FET-PET versus 18F-FDG-PET for the diagnosis and grading of brain tumors: inherent bias in meta-analysis not revealed by quality metrics.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/neuonc/now111
复制
发表时间：
2016-07
期刊：
影响因子：
15.9
通讯作者：
V. Dunet;John O. Prior
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Dunet;John O. Prior
我们饶有兴趣地读了黄等人写给编辑的信。1作者对我们最近的荟萃分析的方法和结论提出了几点担忧，该分析旨在比较18F-FET-PET和18F-FDG-PET在诊断和分级新的脑肿瘤方面的性能。2正如作者所指出的，只有几篇文章直接比较了这两种示踪剂。因此，需要对各自的表现进行更多的探索，以帮助选择最适合日常练习的考试。与18F-FDG-PET相比，18F-FET-PET对脑肿瘤(图2)和胶质瘤的诊断有更高的表现。我们还报告了5个使用18F-FDG-PET而不是18F-FET-PET的入选研究的性能异质性和不一致性。Huang等人指出，纳入标准和群体特征在不同的研究之间是不同的，这似乎从他们的角度引入了分析偏见
We read with interest the letter to the editor by Huang et al. 1 The authors raised several concerns regarding the methodology and conclusions of our recent meta-analysis that aimed to compare the performance of 18F-FET-PET with 18F-FDG-PET for diagnosing and grading new brain tumors. 2 As noted by the authors, only a few articles have directly compared both tracers. The respective performance thus needs more exploration to help in choosing the best examination for daily practice. Higher performances were demonstrated with 18F-FET-PET compared with 18F-FDG-PET for the diagnosis of brain tumors (our Fig. 2 in 2) and glioma. We also reported performance heterogeneity and inconsistency among the 5 selected studies with 18F-FDG-PET but not with 18F-FET-PET. Huang et al 1 noted that inclusion criteria and population characteristics were different between studies, which seems to introduce an analytic bias from their point