Welcome, this website is intended for all international healthcare professionals in uro-oncology. By clicking the link below you are declaring and confirming that you are a healthcare professional.

You are here

Is fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography useful for detecting bladder lesions? A meta-analysis of the literature

Wang N. Jiang P. Lu Y.

Urologia Internationalis 2014;92(2):143-9.


Objective To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG PET) in the detection of bladder lesions.

Methods We conducted a systematic PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase database search of articles published before November 2012. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were pooled. A summary receiver operating characteristic curve was also used to summarize overall test performance. All meta-analyses were performed using the Meta-DiSc software (version 1.4).

Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PET or PET/CT for the detection of bladder cancer was 80.0% (95% CI: 71.0-87.0%) and 84.0% (95% CI: 69.0-93.0%), respectively. The overall positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic odds ratio were 3.47 (95% CI: 1.03-11.65), 0.31 (95% CI: 0.13-0.70) and 13.86 (95% CI: 2.84-67.74), respectively. Besides, the area (± standard error) under the symmetrical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8574 ± 0.0704.

Conclusion When compared with results of MRI and CT published by other studies, (18)F-FDG PET or PET/CT showed no superiority in detecting local bladder lesions. As a whole body imaging, it is suggested that PET is more appropriate for the detection of metastasis.


Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.


Subscribe to our E-Alert to keep up to date with the new items in the Resource Centre


URO ONCO is made possible by an unrestricted educational grant from:

The editorial independence of the resource centre is mandatory and recognized by the EAU and Elsevier.

The journal articles, videos and statements published on the resource centre have been selected independently and without influence from Elsevier, European Urology Editors or the sponsor and do not necessarily reflect their opinions or views.