Table 2.
Characteristics of the included articles
| Author | Year | Modality | n | Male (%) | Mean/median age (SD or range) | Population/methods | Blinding | Design | Reference standard | Prevalence | FU (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arulampalam et al. [57] | 2001 | CT vs PET | 42 | 55 | 68 (40–84) | Known or suspected recurrence | NR | Prospective tertiary referral centre ≥2 readers per modality | Histology (n = 16) & clinical/radiological follow-up (n = 26) | 71% | Mean 15.6 |
| Chen et al. [2] | 2007 | PET/CT | 68 | 71 | 58 (27–77) | Follow-up or suspected recurrence | NR | Retrospective >2 readers | Histology, colonoscopy, radiological and clinical follow-up | 82% | Range 5–28 |
| Cohade et al. [58] | 2003 | PET vs PET/CT | 38 | 62 | 61 (±11) | Known or suspected recurrence | Yes | Retrospective 1 reader | Consensus based on histology, follow-up and CDM | NR | > 6 months (n = 25) |
| < 6 months (n = 11) | |||||||||||
| Delbeke et al. [59] | 1997 | PET | 52 | 60 | 63 (±11) | Known or suspected recurrence | Partial | Retrospective PET 2 nuclear physicians | Histology (n = 44), perioperative evaluation & follow-up (n = 17) | 90% | ≥ 12 |
| Imbriaco et al. [6] | 2000 | CT vs PET | 40 | 55 | 58 (47–69) | Suspected recurrence | Yes | Retrospective CT 1 radiologist, PET 1 nuclear physician | Histology & clinical follow-up | NR | ≥ 6 |
| Kim et al. [7] | 2005 | PET vs PET/CT | 51 | 59 | 65 (±11) | Known or suspected recurrence | Yes | Retrospective 3 nuclear physicians | Histology & clinical and radiological follow-up | 47% | ≥ 6 |
| Lonneux et al. [60] | 2002 | PET | 79 | NR | NR | Known or suspected recurrence | Partial | Retrospective No. of readers ? | Histology (n = 36) & follow-up (n = 46) | 86% | > 6 |
| Nakamoto et al. [61] | 2007 | CT vs PET vs PET/CT | 63 | 60 | 62 (32–84) | Follow-up and suspected recurrence | Yes | Retrospective CT 2 readers, PET & PET/CT 2 readers | Histology (n = 17) & follow-up (n = 45) | 57% | 7.6 (range 6–14) |
| Ruhlmann et al. [62] | 1997 | PET | 56 | 46 | 62 (35–80) | Known or suspected recurrence | No | Retrospective No. of readers ? | Histology (n = 57), surgical exploration and follow-up | 78% | Median 11 (range 1–21) |
| Schmidt et al. [63] | 2009 | PET/CT vs MRI | 24 | NR | 62 (47–80) | Suspected recurrence | Yes | Prospective MRI 2 readers, PET/CT 2 readers | Histology for local recurrence and follow-up for other lesions | 75% | ≥ 5 |
| Mean 11 (range 5–30) | |||||||||||
| Staib et al. [64] | 2000 | CT vs PET | 100 | 58 | 62 (32–80) | Known or suspected recurrence | Partial | Prospective No. of readers ? | Histology (n = 33) & follow-up (n = 67) | 58% | Mean 12.3 ± SD1 |
| Valk et al. [65] | 1999 | CT vs PET | 115 | 49 | 67 (31–93) | Known or suspected recurrence | Yes | Prospective readers 2 or 3 nuclear physicians and radiologists | Histology, surgical exploration and follow-up | 88% | ≥ 12 |
| Whiteford et al. [66] | 2000 | PET | 105 | 58 | NR | Known or suspected recurrence | No | Retrospective readers 1 or 2 nuclear physicians | Histology, surgical exploration and follow-up | 80% | ≥ 6 |
| Willkomm et al. [8] | 2000 | PET | 28 | 54 | 62 | Known or suspected recurrence | Partial | Prospective readers 2 nuclear physicians | Histology, surgical exploration (n = 14) and CDM | 71% | Range 6–19 |
CT computed tomography, PET positron emission tomography, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, NR not reported, SD standard deviation, CDM conventional diagnostic modalities