Quantitative performance of a quadrupole-orbitrap-MS in targeted LC-MS determinations of small molecules.

High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) has been associated with qualitative and research analysis and QQQ-MS with quantitative and routine analysis. This view is now challenged and for this reason, we have evaluated the quantitative LC-MS performance of a new high-resolution mass spectrometer (HRMS), a Q-orbitrap-MS, and compared the results obtained with a recent triple-quadrupole MS (QQQ-MS). High-resolution full-scan (HR-FS) and MS/MS acquisitions have been tested with real plasma extracts or pure standards. Limits of detection, dynamic range, mass accuracy and false positive or false negative detections have been determined or investigated with protease inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, steroids and metanephrines. Our quantitative results show that today's available HRMS are reliable and sensitive quantitative instruments and comparable to QQQ-MS quantitative performance. Taking into account their versatility, user-friendliness and robustness, we believe that HRMS should be seen more and more as key instruments in quantitative LC-MS analyses. In this scenario, most targeted LC-HRMS analyses should be performed by HR-FS recording virtually "all" ions. In addition to absolute quantifications, HR-FS will allow the relative quantifications of hundreds of metabolites in plasma revealing individual's metabolome and exposome. This phenotyping of known metabolites should promote HRMS in clinical environment. A few other LC-HRMS analyses should be performed in single-ion-monitoring or MS/MS mode when increased sensitivity and/or detection selectivity will be necessary.

Performance of 18F-FET versus 18F-FDG-PET for the diagnosis and grading of brain tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: For the past decade (18)F-fluoro-ethyl-l-tyrosine (FET) and (18)F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) have been used for the assessment of patients with brain tumor. However, direct comparison studies reported only limited numbers of patients. Our purpose was to compare the diagnostic performance of FET and FDG-PET. METHODS: We examined studies published between January 1995 and January 2015 in the PubMed database. To be included the study should: (i) use FET and FDG-PET for the assessment of patients with isolated brain lesion and (ii) use histology as the gold standard. Analysis was performed on a per patient basis. Study quality was assessed with STARD and QUADAS criteria. RESULTS: Five studies (119 patients) were included. For the diagnosis of brain tumor, FET-PET demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.79-0.98) and pooled specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.37-0.99), with an area under the curve of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.97), a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 8.1 (95% CI: 0.8-80.6), and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.07 (95% CI: 0.02-0.30), while FDG-PET demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.27-0.50) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.31-0.99), with an area under the curve of 0.40 (95% CI: 0.36-0.44), an LR+ of 2.7 (95% CI: 0.3-27.8), and an LR- of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.47-1.11). Target-to-background ratios of either FDG or FET, however, allow distinction between low- and high-grade gliomas (P > .11). CONCLUSIONS: For brain tumor diagnosis, FET-PET performed much better than FDG and should be preferred when assessing a new isolated brain tumor. For glioma grading, however, both tracers showed similar performances.