The influence of receptor expression and clinical subtypes on baseline [18F]FDG uptake in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

de Mooij, Cornelis M.; Ploumen, Roxanne A. W.; Nelemans, Patty J.; Mottaghy, Felix M.; Smidt, Marjolein L.; van Nijnatten, Thiemo J. A.

doi:10.1186/s13550-023-00953-y

EJNMMI Research

Table 2 Estimates of the SMD as summary measure for the difference in [18F]FDG (SUV_max) uptake between St. Gallen surrogate intrisic subtypes

From: The influence of receptor expression and clinical subtypes on baseline [18F]FDG uptake in breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparisons	Studies	Patients		Meta-analysis				Subgroup	Egger
Comparisons	No	Patients		I² (%)	SMD	95% CI	P	P	P
Primary analyses
LB versus
LB	11	1022	487	29.8	− 0.49	− 0.68, − 0.31	0.0001	–	0.8191
LBHER2−	6	234	373	32.5	− 0.68	− 0.97, − 0.38	0.0021	–	0.4378
LBHER2+	6	234	142	54.2	− 0.72	− 1.17, − 0.28	0.0089	–	0.2371
HER2+	15	1024	290	56.4	− 0.91	− 1.21, − 0.61	< 0.0001	–	0.6148
TNBC	17	1054	440	63.8	− 1.21	− 1.57, − 0.85	< 0.0001	–	0.7310
LB versus
HER2+	9	369	185	61.2	− 0.32	− 0.88, 0.24	0.2244	–	0.8729
TNBC	10	405	279	36.0	− 0.77	− 1.05, − 0.49	0.0002	–	0.5091
LBHER2− versus
LBHER2+	6	373	142	66.0	− 0.02	− 0.52, 0.48	0.9316	–	0.1000
HER2+	6	373	105	51.7	− 0.33	− 0.81, 0.14	0.1305	–	0.4260
TNBC	6	373	157	49.5	− 0.58	− 1.02, − 0.15	0.0177	–	0.7121
LBHER2+ versus
HER2+	7	189	129	0.0	− 0.22	− 0.43, − 0.01	0.0457	–	0.3950
TNBC	8	220	198	60.7	− 0.45	− 0.98, 0.08	0.0864	–	0.2661
HER2+ versus
TNBC	17	326	492	58.1	− 0.29	− 0.61, 0.02	0.0667	–	0.6702
TNBC versus
Non-TNBC	13	283	1157	0.0	0.56	0.41, 0.70	< 0.0001	–	0.1236
Sensitivity analyses
LA versus
LB	16	1361	1103	58.1	− 0.46	− 0.64, − 0.28	< 0.0001	0.6555	0.4305
LBHER2−	7	309	522	54.9	− 0.60	− 0.90, − 0.31	0.0025	0.0213	0.1428
LBHER2+	7	309	176	46.4	− 0.71	− 1.07, − 0.36	0.0026	0.7466	0.3720
HER2+	21	1438	706	59.0	− 0.85	− 1.08, − 0.62	< 00,001	0.4906	0.6625
TNBC	24	1499	865	76.5	− 1.18	− 1.48, − 0.88	< 0.0001	0.7134	0.6259
LB versus
HER2-pure	14	985	579	58.1	− 0.37	− 0.67, − 0.08	0.0170	0.5380	0.3568
TNBC	15	1021	614	49.4	− 0.75	− 0.95, − 0.55	< 0.0001	0.7621	0.2725
LBHER2− versus
LBHER2+	7	522	176	65.3	− 0.09	− 0.52, 0.33	0.6078	0.1151	0.0428
HER2+	7	522	139	42.4	− 0.37	− 0.73, − 0.01	0.0454	0.6619	0.3687
TNBC	7	522	233	45.1	− 0.53	− 0.86, − 0.21	0.0073	0.3633	0.4680
LBHER2+ versus
HER2+	8	223	151	0.0	− 0.17	− 0.37, 0.02	0.0745	0.3306	0.3426
TNBC	9	254	274	62.3	− 0.37	− 0.84, 0.10	0.1103	0.0792	0.1436
HER2+ versus
TNBC	24	754	916	45.2	− 0.25	− 0.45, − 0.06	0.0130	0.9067	0.3980
TNBC versus
Non-TNBC	19	379	1516	40.6	0.73	0.54, 0.90	< 0.0001	0.0015	0.0526

Data derived from the primary and sensitivity analyses are presented
CI, confidence interval; HER2, human epidermal growth factor 2 receptor; LA, luminal A; LB, luminal B; SMD, standardized mean difference; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer

Back to article page