Objective. To meta-analyze published data about the diagnostic accuracy of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (PET/CT) for primary tumor evaluation in patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCa). Methods. A comprehensive literature search of studies published through December 31, 2013, was performed. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated on a per patient based analysis. Subgroup analyses considering the device used (PET versus PET/CT) and the localization of the primary tumor (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IH-CCa), extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EH-CCa), and hilar cholangiocarcinoma (H-CCa)) were carried out. Results. Twenty-three studies including 1232 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG-PET or PET/CT were 81% and 82%, respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 80% and 89% for PET, 82% and 75% for PET/CT, 95% and 83% for IH-CCa, 84% and 95% for H-CCa, and 76% and 74% for EH-CCa. Conclusions.   18F-FDG-PET and PET/CT were demonstrated to be accurate diagnostic imaging methods for primary tumor evaluation in patients with CCa. These tools have a better diagnostic accuracy in patients with IH-CCa than in patients with EH-CCa. Further studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET or PET/CT in patients with H-CCa.

Background: Several meta-analyses have reported quantitative data about the diagnostic performance, the prognostic value, the impact on management and the safety of positron emission tomography (PET) including related hybrid modalities (PET/CT or PET/MRI) using different radiopharmaceuticals in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms. We performed an umbrella review of published meta-analyses to provide an evidence-based summary. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of meta-analyses listed in PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases was carried out (last search date: 30 June 2021). Results: Thirty-four published meta-analyses were selected and summarized. About the diagnostic performance: 68Ga-SSA PET yields high diagnostic performance in patients with NETs and PGL; 18F-FDOPA PET yields good diagnostic performance in patients with intestinal NETs, PGL, NB, being the best available PET method in detecting rMTC; 68Ga-exendin-4 PET has good diagnostic accuracy in detecting insulinomas; 18F-FDG PET has good diagnostic performance in detecting aggressive neuroendocrine neoplasms. About the prognostic value: 68Ga-SSA PET has a recognized prognostic value in well-differentiated NETs, whereas 18F-FDG PET has a recognized prognostic value in aggressive neuroendocrine neoplasms. A significant clinical impact of 68Ga-SSA PET and related hybrid modalities in patients with NETs was demonstrated. There are no major toxicities or safety issues related to the use of PET radiopharmaceuticals in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms. Conclusions: Evidence-based data support the use of PET with different radiopharmaceuticals in patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms with specific indications for each radiopharmaceutical.

Background Selection criteria and prognostic factors for patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC) undergoing cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intra-operative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) have not been well defined, and the literature data are not homogeneous. The aim of this study was to compare prognostic factors influencing overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in a population of patients affected by AGC with surgery alone and surgery plus HIPEC, both with curative (PCI, peritoneal carcinomatosis index > 1) and prophylactic (PCI = 0) intent. Methods A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted in patients affected by AGC from January 2006 to December 2015. Uni- and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors were performed. Results A total of 85 patients with AGC were analyzed. A 5-year OS for surgery alone, CRS plus curative HIPEC, and surgery plus prophylactic HIPEC groups was 9%, 27% and 33%, respectively. Statistical significance was reached comparing both prophylactic HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.05), curative HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.03), and curative vs prophylactic HIPEC (p = 0.04). A 5-year DFS for surgery alone, CRS + curative HIPEC, and surgery + prophylactic HIPEC groups was 9%, 20%, and 30%, respectively. Statistical significance was reached comparing both prophylactic HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p < 0.0001), curative HIPEC vs surgery alone group (p = 0.008), and curative vs prophylactic HIPEC (p = 0.05). Conclusions Patients with AGC undergoing surgery plus HIPEC had a better OS and DFS with respect to patients treated with surgery alone.

Background: The implementation of multidisciplinary tumor board (MDTB) meetings significantly ameliorated the management of oncological diseases. However, few evidences are currently present on their impact on pancreatic cancer (PC) management. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the MDTB on PC diagnosis, resectability and tumor response to oncological treatment compared with indications before discussion. Patients and methods: All patients with a suspected or proven diagnosis of PC presented at the MDTB from 2017 to 2019 were included in the study. Changes of diagnosis, resectability and tumor response to oncological/radiation treatment between pre-and post-MDTB discussion were analyzed. Results: A total of 438 cases were included in the study: 249 (56.8%) were presented as new diagnoses, 148 (33.8%) for resectability assessment and 41 (9.4%) for tumor response evaluation to oncological treatment. MDTB discussion led to a change in diagnosis in 54/249 cases (21.7%), with a consequent treatment strategy variation in 36 cases (14.5%). Change in resectability was documented in 44/148 cases (29.7%), with the highest discrepancy for borderline lesions. The treatment strategy was thus modified in 27 patients (18.2%). The MDTB brought a modification in the tumor response assessment in 6/41 cases (14.6%), with a consequent protocol modification in four (9.8%) cases. Conclusions: MDTB discussion significantly impacts on PC management, especially in high-volume centers, with consistent variations in terms of diagnosis, resectability and tumor response assessment compared with indications before discussion.