Table I.
Characteristics of the included studies (n=58).
| Study number | First author and year | Country | Study design | Sample size | Type of diagnostic modality | Gold standard comparator | Outcomes reported | Sensitivity and specificity | (Refs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ahn et al, 2009 | South Korea | Retrospective | 434 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=17.0% Specificity=91.6% | (26) |
| 2 | Bilici et al, 2011 | Turkey | Retrospective | 34 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity (FDG-PET)=95.8% Specificity (FDG-PET)=100.0% Sensitivity (CECT)=62.5% Specificity (CECT)=100.0% | (27) |
| 3 | Blackshaw et al, 2003 | United Kingdom | Prospective | 100 | CECT | Histopathology | Distant metastasis | Sensitivity (CECT)=46.2% Specificity (CECT)=100.0% | (28) |
| 4 | Bosch et al, 2020 | United Kingdom | Retrospective | 105 | CECT | Histopathology | Distant metastasis | Sensitivity (CECT)=40.0% Specificity (CECT)=73.3% | (29) |
| 5 | Cayvarlı et al, 2014 | Turkey | Retrospective | 130 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=91.2% Specificity=61.5% | (30) |
| 6 | Chen et al, 2005 | South Korea | Prospective | 68 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node and distant metastasis | FDG PET (LN): Sensitivity=56.0% Specificity=92.0% FDG PET (Distant): Sensitivity=30.0% Specificity=98.0% CECT (Distant): Sensitivity=80.0% Specificity=91.0% CECT (LN): Sensitivity=78.0% Specificity=61.0% | (31) |
| 7 | Chen et al, 2007 | Taiwan | Retrospective | 64 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=88.0% Specificity=80.0% | (32) |
| 8 | Chen et al, 2006 | Taiwan | Prospective study | 55 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=86.0% Specificity=77.0% | (14) |
| 9 | De Potter et al, 2002 | Belgium | Retrospective study | 33 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=70.0% Specificity=69.0% | (33) |
| 10 | D'Elia F et al, 2000 | Italy | Prospective | 107 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=97.0% Specificity=65.0% | (34) |
| 11 | Feng et al, 2013 | China | Prospective | 610 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=84.9% Specificity=61.0% | (35) |
| 12 | Filik et al, 2015 | Turkey | Retrospective | 25 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | FDG PET: Sensitivity=82.0% Specificity=75.0% CECT: Sensitivity=64.0% Specificity=100.0% | (36) |
| 13 | Fujikawa et al, 2014 | Japan | Prospective | 525 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=4.0% Specificity=98.0% | (37) |
| 14 | Giganti et al, 2016 | Italy | Prospective | 55 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=90.0% Specificity=91.0% | (38) |
| 15 | Graziosi et al, 2011 | Italy | Retrospective | 50 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=89.0% Specificity=85.0% | (39) |
| 16 | Ha et al, 2011 | South Korea | Retrospective | 78 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | FDG PET: Sensitivity=89.0% Specificity=85.0% CECT: Sensitivity=69.0% Specificity=86.0% | (40) |
| 17 | Hasegawa et al, 2013 | Japan | Prospective | 315 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=46.4% Specificity=96.0% | (41) |
| 18 | Hwang et al, 2010 Korea | South | Prospective | 247 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=44.5% Specificity=85.3% | (42) |
| 19 | Jadvar et al, 2003 | United States of America | Retrospective | 18 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=77.7% Specificity=77.7% | (43) |
| 20 | Joo et al, 2015 | South Korea | Prospective | 47 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=43.3% Specificity=100.0% | (44) |
| 21 | Karakoyun et al, 2014 | Turkey | Prospective | 55 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=97.5% Specificity=73.3% | (45) |
| 22 | Kawanaka et al, 2016 | Japan | Retrospective study | 101 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node and distant metastasis | FDG PET (LN): Sensitivity=80.0% Specificity=70.0% CECT (Distant): Sensitivity=75.0% Specificity=97.0% FDG PET (Distant): Sensitivity=81.0% Specificity=100.0% CECT (LN): Sensitivity=84.0% Specificity=70.0% | (46) |
| 23 | Kim et al, 2005 | South Korea | Prospective | 106 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=71.7% Specificity=63.3% | (47) |
| 24 | Kim et al, 2009 | South Korea | Retrospective | 102 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=50.0% Specificity=91.0% | (48) |
| 25 | Kim et al, 2011 | South Korea | Retrospective | 71 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis and recurrent gastric cancer | Lymph node metastasis: Sensitivity=40.0% Specificity=100.0% Recurrent gastric cancer: Sensitivity=51.0% Specificity=84.0% | (49) |
| 26 | Kim et al, 2013 | South Korea | Retrospective | 171 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=60.0% Specificity=89.0% | (50) |
| 27 | Kim et al, 2017 | South Korea | Retrospective | 600 | CECT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=75.9% Specificity=98.4% | (51) |
| 28 | Kudou et al, 2018 | Japan | Retrospective | 117 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node and distant metastasis | FDG PET (LN): Sensitivity=22.6% Specificity=90.0% CECT (Distant): Sensitivity=60.8% Specificity=67.6% FDG PET (Distant): Sensitivity=80.0% Specificity=64.0% CECT (LN): Sensitivity=52.0% Specificity=71.0% | (52) |
| 29 | Lee et al, 2010 | South Korea | Retrospective | 148 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=26.3% Specificity=98.8% | (53) |
| 30 | Lee et al, 2011 | South Korea | Retrospective | 93 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | FDG PET: Sensitivity=42.0% Specificity=57.0% CECT: Sensitivity=85.0% Specificity=87.0% | (54) |
| 31 | Lee et al, 2014 | South Korea | Retrospective | 46 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=100.0% Specificity=88.0% | (55) |
| 32 | Lim et al, 2006 | South Korea | Retrospective | 112 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node and distant metastasis | Sensitivity=35.0% Specificity=98.9% | (56) |
| 33 | Marrelli et al, 2011 | Italy | Prospective | 92 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=84.6% Specificity=95% | (57) |
| 34 | Mochiki et al, 2004 | Japan | Prospective | 85 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | FDG PET: Sensitivity=35.0% Specificity=100.0% CECT: Sensitivity=65.0% Specificity=77.0% | (23) |
| 35 | Nakamoto et al, 2009 | Japan | Retrospective | 92 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=77.2% Specificity=91.7% | (58) |
| 36 | Namikawa et al, 2014 | Japan | Retrospective | 90 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=64.0% Specificity=85.0% | (59) |
| 37 | Pan et al, 2013 | China | Prospective | 96 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=91.0% Specificity=60.0% | (60) |
| 38 | Park et al, 2009 | South Korea | Retrospective | 105 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=74.0% Specificity=76.0% | (61) |
| 39 | Park et al, 2010 | South Korea | Retrospective | 1964 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=57.0% Specificity=80.0% | (62) |
| 40 | Park et al, 2014 | South Korea | Retrospective | 74 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=51.0% Specificity=81.0% | (63) |
| 41 | Perlaza et al, 2018 | Spain | Prospective | 50 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Distant metastasis | FDG PET: Sensitivity=63.0% Specificity=92.0% CECT: Sensitivity=65.0% Specificity=100.0% | (64) |
| 42 | Ren et al, 2007 | China | Retrospective | 77 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=83.0% Specificity=75.0% | (65) |
| 43 | Saito et al, 2015 | Japan | Retrospective | 90 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=55.0% Specificity=86.0% | (66) |
| 44 | Sharma et al, 2012 | India | Retrospective | 93 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=95.0% Specificity=79.0% | (67) |
| 45 | Shinohara et al, 2005 | Japan | Prospective | 451 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=67.0% Specificity=90.0% | (68) |
| 46 | Sim et al, 2009 | South | Retrospective Korea | 52 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology and CECT | Recurrent gastric cancer | FDG PET: Sensitivity=68.0% Specificity=71.0% CECT: Sensitivity=89.0% Specificity=64.0% | (69) |
| 47 | Smyth et al, 2012 | United States of America | Prospective | 113 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Distant metastasis | Sensitivity=35.0% Specificity=98.7% | (70) |
| 48 | Stell et al, 1996 | United Kingdom | Prospective | 65 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node and distant metastasis | LN: Sensitivity=26.0% Specificity=100.0% Distant: Sensitivity=7.6% Specificity=100.0% | (71) |
| 49 | Sun et al, 2008 | China | Retrospective | 23 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Distant metastasis | Sensitivity=85.0% Specificity=77.7% | (72) |
| 50 | Tsujimoto et al, 2010 | Japan | Prospective | 205 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | LN metastasis | Sensitivity=21.0% Specificity=89.0% | (73) |
| 51 | Turlakow A et al, 2003 | United States of America | Retrospective | 37 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Distant metastasis | Sensitivity=56.0% Specificity=93.0% | (74) |
| 52 | Yan et al, 2009 | China | Prospective | 670 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=86.0% Specificity=76.0% | (75) |
| 53 | Yan et al, 2010 | China | Prospective | 61 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=77.0% Specificity=73.0% | (76) |
| 54 | Yang et al, 2008 | Japan | Retrospective | 44 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=84.0% Specificity=84.0% | (77) |
| 55 | Yoon et al, 2012 | South Korea | Retrospective | 372 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | FDG PET: Sensitivity=59.0% Specificity=88.0% CECT: Sensitivity=70.0% Specificity=82.0% | (78) |
| 56 | Yun et al, 2005 | South Korea | Retrospective | 30 | 18F-FDG PET/CT | Histopathology | Recurrent gastric cancer | Sensitivity=94.0% Specificity=69.0% | (79) |
| 57 | Yun et al, 2005 | South Korea | Retrospective | 81 | 18F-FDG PET/CT and CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | FDG PET: Sensitivity=50.0% Specificity=98.0% CECT: Sensitivity=50.0% Specificity=98.0% | (80) |
| 58 | Zhong et al, 2012 | China | Retrospective | 115 | CECT | Histopathology | Lymph node metastasis | Sensitivity=87.0% Specificity=75.0% | (81) |
CECT, contrast-enhanced computed tomography; 18F-FDG PET, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.