Table 1 Primary characteristics of studies included in this meta-analysis
Study & author | Country | N Pts | FDG Avidity | Age | TNM Stage | Treatment | Endpoint | Type of SUV | SUV threshold definition | Threshold value | QS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Stahl 2003 [4] | Germany | 40 | 60% | 55 ± 10 | T3-T4 | Operation chemotherapy | OS | SUVmean | median value | 4.6 | 57.90% |
Mochiki 2004 [14] | Japan | 85 | 75.20% | 36–85 | T1-T4 I–III | Operation | OS | SUVmean | median value | 4 | 71.00% |
Chung 2010 [23] | Korea | 35 | 100% | 57 ± 13 | IV | Chemotherapy | OS | SUVmax | mean value | 8 | 71.00% |
Park 2012 [16] | Korea | 82 | 100% | 58.6 ± 12 | I–IV | Inoperative palliative chemotherapy | OS and PFS | SUVmax | ROC | 6 | 71.00% |
Lee 2012 [15] | Korea | 271 | 54.98% | 60 ± 12 | I–III | Operation | RFS | SUVmax | ROC | 8.2 | 73.70% |
Kim 2014 [24] | Korea | 97 | 51.54% | 59.8 ± 13.2 | Ia-IV | Operation chemotherapy | PFS | SUVmax | ROC | 5.74 | 71.00% |
Lee 2015 [12] | Korea. | 279 | 80% | 20–93 | pT2-pT4 pN0-pN4 IB–III | Operation | OS and RFS | TLR | ROC | 2 | 65.80% |
Song 2015 [26] | Korea | 151 | 81% | 58 ± 12.4 | I–III | Operation | OS and RFS | SUVmax | ROC | 4.5 | 71.00% |