Background: Meta-analyses on the prevalence and significance of thyroid incidentalomas at PET (TIP) are available only about [18F]FDG. Focal TIP at [18F]FDG PET is not rare and may be malignant lesions in about one-third of cases. The aim of this study is to perform a meta-analysis on the prevalence and clinical significance of TIP using other PET radiotracers beyond [18F]FDG. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of studies about TIP was carried out using four different databases, screened until 31 December 2024. Only original articles about TIP using radiopharmaceuticals other than [18F]FDG were selected. A proportion meta-analysis on the prevalence and clinical significance of TIP was carried out on a patient-based analysis using a random-effects model. Results: 21 studies (29,409 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. PET was performed using radiolabeled somatostatin analogues (SSA) [n = 5], choline [n = 6], prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) [n = 7], or fibroblast activation protein inhibitors (FAPI) [n = 3]. The uptake pattern of TIP was described as focal, diffuse, or mixed/heterogeneous. The pooled prevalence of TIP was 5.6% for SSA-PET, 6.1% for choline-PET, 4.2% for PSMA-PET, and 3.6% for FAPI-PET. The final diagnosis of TIP with a diffuse pattern was a benign condition or represented a physiological uptake. Conversely, TIP with focal or mixed/heterogeneous pattern may represent a benign condition in most cases, but even a malignant lesion in 6–10% of cases. Conclusions: As for [18F]FDG, TIP using other radiopharmaceuticals is not rare. Most of them are benign, but those with focal or heterogeneous uptake patterns may represent a malignant lesion in some cases (even if the risk of malignancy is lower compared to [18F]FDG PET), thus requiring further evaluation. Further studies are warranted to better clarify the clinical impact of TIP detection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iacovitti et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: