UNLABELLED: The management of patients presenting with metastases of unknown primary origin remains a clinical challenge despite a large variety of imaging modalities. The aim of this study was to evaluate FDG PET in detecting the sites of primary cancer in these patients. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with metastatic cervical adenopathy (n = 44) or extracervical metastases (n = 9) of unknown primary origin were included after extensive but inconclusive conventional diagnostic work-up. Patients received 370 MBq FDG (10 mCi) intravenously, and whole-body images were acquired at 60 min after injection. Clinical, surgical, and histopathologic findings and complete correlative imaging were used to assess the results. RESULTS: In 27 of 53 patients FDG PET showed focal tracer accumulations corresponding to potential primary tumor sites located in the lungs (n = 12), the palatine tonsil (n = 5), the salivary glands (n = 2), the nasopharynx (n = 1), the oropharynx (n = 3), the maxillary sinus (n = 1), and the larynx (n = 1). Moreover, in 2 patients FDG PET revealed lesions suspected to be tumors in the breast and the ileocolonic area. In 20 (37.8%) of these 53 patients FDG PET was true-positive, identifying the primary tumor in the lungs (n = 10), the head and neck region (n = 8), the breast (n = 1), and the ileocolonic area (n = 1). In 6 of 27 patients FDG PET was false-positive, predominantly identifying suspicious areas in the palatine tonsil (n = 3). One patient denied further diagnostic work-up after PET; thus, positive PET could not be evaluated. In 26 of 53 patients PET did not reveal lesions suspected to be the primary. However, primary tumors were not found in these patients at clinical follow-up. CONCLUSION: FDG PET is a valuable diagnostic tool in patients with cancer of unknown primary because it imaged unknown primary tumors in about one third of all patients investigated. In addition, FDG PET assists in both guiding biopsies for histologic evaluation and selecting the appropriate treatment protocols for these patients.
UNLABELLED: The management of patients presenting with metastases of unknown primary origin remains a clinical challenge despite a large variety of imaging modalities. The aim of this study was to evaluate FDG PET in detecting the sites of primary cancer in these patients. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with metastatic cervical adenopathy (n = 44) or extracervical metastases (n = 9) of unknown primary origin were included after extensive but inconclusive conventional diagnostic work-up. Patients received 370 MBq FDG (10 mCi) intravenously, and whole-body images were acquired at 60 min after injection. Clinical, surgical, and histopathologic findings and complete correlative imaging were used to assess the results. RESULTS: In 27 of 53 patientsFDG PET showed focal tracer accumulations corresponding to potential primary tumor sites located in the lungs (n = 12), the palatine tonsil (n = 5), the salivary glands (n = 2), the nasopharynx (n = 1), the oropharynx (n = 3), the maxillary sinus (n = 1), and the larynx (n = 1). Moreover, in 2 patientsFDG PET revealed lesions suspected to be tumors in the breast and the ileocolonic area. In 20 (37.8%) of these 53 patientsFDG PET was true-positive, identifying the primary tumor in the lungs (n = 10), the head and neck region (n = 8), the breast (n = 1), and the ileocolonic area (n = 1). In 6 of 27 patientsFDG PET was false-positive, predominantly identifying suspicious areas in the palatine tonsil (n = 3). One patient denied further diagnostic work-up after PET; thus, positive PET could not be evaluated. In 26 of 53 patients PET did not reveal lesions suspected to be the primary. However, primary tumors were not found in these patients at clinical follow-up. CONCLUSION:FDG PET is a valuable diagnostic tool in patients with cancer of unknown primary because it imaged unknown primary tumors in about one third of all patients investigated. In addition, FDG PET assists in both guiding biopsies for histologic evaluation and selecting the appropriate treatment protocols for these patients.
Authors: Stefan A M Paul; Sandro J Stoeckli; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: C Nanni; D Rubello; P Castellucci; M Farsad; R Franchi; S Toso; C Barile; L Rampin; O Nibale; S Fanti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: L Calabrese; B A Jereczek-Fossa; J Jassem; A Rocca; R Bruschini; R Orecchia; F Chiesa Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.124