Systematic review compares diagnostic performance of [18F]-mFBG and [123I]-MIBG in neuroblastoma, indicating implications for clinical management.
Hybrid imaging is fundamental in the staging and response assessment of patients affected by neuroblastoma (NB). [123I]-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy±single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) is considered the gold standard for the evaluation of NB, but it presents some limitations, such as the time-consuming procedure (2 days), the low spatial resolution, and challenging interpretation. Alternative positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) catecholaminergic radiopharmaceuticals have been investigated to overtake the issues of [123I]-MIBG. Among them, one of the most promising seems to be meta-[18F]fluorobenzylguanidine ([18F]-mFBG). Thus, we planned a head-to-head systematic review and meta-analysis to compare [18F]-mFBG PET/CT and [123I]-MIBG SPECT/CT in NB. We executed a literature search to identify all articles performing a head-to-head comparison between these two methods, excluding review articles, preclinical studies, case reports, and small case series (less than 5 patients). Finally, five studies were collected for a total of 115 patients and 1,644 lesions. A patients-based analysis showed that [18F]-mFBG PET/CT had a higher pooled sensitivity than [123I]-MIBG SPECT/CT (97% vs 82%, respectively) and identical pooled specificity (82%). Also at a lesion-based analysis, [18F]-mFBG PET/CT demonstrated better sensitivity (99% vs 51.5%). In conclusion, preliminary evidence-based data demonstrate that [18F]-mFBG PET/CT showed superior diagnostic performance than [123I]-MIBG SPECT/CT. However, it is still unclear the real added value of [18F]-mFBG PET/CT compared to [123I]-MIBG SPECT/CT in the change of clinical management. These findings suggest [18F]-mFBG PET/CT may become a superior, more efficient alternative to [123I]-MIBG for staging and response assessment in neuroblastoma. Future studies should focus on its impact on clinical management and patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albano et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: