A Rationale for the Use of F18-FDG PET/CT in Fever and Inflammation of Unknown Origin

Table 1

Helpful contribution of stand-alone F18-FDG PET in FUO.

Author	Study design/technique; P/R	Patients number	PPV/NPV^∧	Helpful contribution; number/(%)	Final Dx; number/(%)
Meller et al. 2004 [53]	Prospective DHC-PET versus Ga-citrate	20 versus 18	92%/75%	11 (55%)	18 (90%)
Blockmans et al. 2001 [54]	Prospective Full-ring PET versus Ga67-citrate	58 versus 40	*	24 (41%)	38 (66%)
Lorenzen et al. 2001 [55]	Retrospective Full-ring PET	16	92%/100%	11 (69%)	13 (81%)
Bleeker-Rovers et al. 2004 [56]	Retrospective Full-ring PET	35	87%/95%	13 (37%)	19 (54%)
Kjaer et al. 2004 [49]	Prospective Full-ring PET versus In-111 granulocyte	19	30%/67%; …	3 (16%); (26%)	12 (63%)
Buysschaert et al. 2004 [57]	Prospective Full-ring PET	74	36%/*	19 (26%)	39 (53%)
Bleeker-Rovers et al. 2007 [8]	Prospective multicentre Full-ring PET	70	70%/92%	23 (33%)	37 (51%)
Jaruskova and Belohlavek 2006 [58]	Retrospective Full-ring PET and PET-CT	124; FUO = 94	*	45 (36%)	51 (84%)
PET	Total number patients	386		Overall helpfulness of PET 39% (mean)	Overall percentage; final diagnosis; 67% (mean)

Legends: DHC: dual-headed coincidence camera; NPV: negative predictive value; PPV: positive predictive value; CECT: contrast-enhanced CT; NA: not applicable.
*Data could not be retrieved from the original publication.
^∧NPV is defined as the proportion of patients with negative test results for focal diseases, who are correctly diagnosed.