Comparison of Preoperative Imaging Modalities for the Assessment of Malignant Potential of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Network Meta-analysis.

Purpose: The aims of this study are to compare the performance of various preoperative imaging modalities for assessing the malignant potential of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) through a network meta-analysis (NMA) and to clarify the role of 18 F-FDG PET in the management of patients with PCL.
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for the studies evaluating the performance of preoperative imaging modalities for identifying malignant PCLs. The NMA was performed for 4 representative categories of various imaging modalities in terms of diagnostic performance for differentiating malignant from benign PCL and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms only as a subgroup analysis. To calculate the probability of each imaging modality being the most effective diagnostic method, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were obtained.
Results: A total of 1018 patients from 17 direct comparison studies using 2 or more preoperative imaging modalities were included for differentiating malignant from benign PCL. The positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy of 18 F-FDG PET were significantly higher than that of CT (PPV: odds ratio [OR], 2.66; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.21-6.17; accuracy: OR, 2.63; 95% CrI, 1.41-5.38) or MRI (PPV: OR, 2.50; 95% CrI, 1.09-6.26; accuracy: OR, 2.50; 95% CrI, 1.28-5.47) in all PCLs, as well as in the subgroup analysis for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm only. 18 F-FDG PET showed the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve values in all diagnostic performance areas of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, negative predictive value, and accuracy, followed by MRI or CT.
Conclusions: The results from this NMA suggest that 18 F-FDG PET is the best preoperative imaging modality for differentiating malignant from benign PCLs and that it can be used for the preoperative evaluation of PCLs.
Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
(Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)