References Country Sex Mean age Type of study Blinding Type of imaging FDG dose Data assessment TP FP FN TN (M/F) (Yrs) Durie et al. [18] America 39/27 63 Retrospective Yes PET 222-444MBq Qualitative 52 0 0 14 Bredella et al. [19] America 7-Oct 54 Retrospective No PET 3.7MBq/kg Qualitative 11 1 2 3 Zamagni et al. [21] Italy 30/16 55 Prospective No PET-CT NR SUV>2.5 37 2 3 4 Nanni et al. [20] America 3-Jul 58 Prospective Yes PET-CT 5.3MBq/kg SUV≥1 6 0 0 4 Kim et al. [22] Australian NR NR Retrospective Yes PET-CT NR Qualitative 16 0 1 4 Nanni et al. [23] America 3-Nov 55 Retrospective No PET-CT 5.3MBq/kg SUV>3.0 6 2 0 6 Elliott et al.[24] America 16/8 60.8 Retrospective No PET-CT NR Qualitative 6 2 4 12 Sager et al. [25] Turkey 27/15 58.5 Retrospective Yes PET-CT 5.4MBq/kg Qualitative 35 0 5 2 Ho et al. [26] Hong Kong 32/23 61.2 Retrospective Yes PET-CT NR SUV>2.5 15 0 11 29 Park et al. [27] Korea NR 58 Retrospective Yes PET NR SUV>2.5 54 0 5 84 Okasaki et al. [28] Japan NR 58.3 Prospective NR PET-CT 5MBq/kg Qualitative 9 5 6 16

Table 1: Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis. M: Man; F: Female; FDG: 18F-Deoxyglucose; NR: Not Reported; TP: True-Positive; FP: False-Positive; FN: False-Negative; TN: True-Negative; PET: Positron Emission Tomography; PET-CT: Positron Emission Tomography-Computer Tomography; SUV: Standardized Uptake Value.