Literature DB >> 10911007

Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography.

R M Pieterman1, J W van Putten, J J Meuzelaar, E L Mooyaart, W Vaalburg, G H Koëter, V Fidler, J Pruim, H J Groen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Determining the stage of non-small-cell lung cancer often requires multiple preoperative tests and invasive procedures. Whole-body positron-emission tomography (PET) may simplify and improve the evaluation of patients with this tumor.
METHODS: We prospectively compared the ability of a standard approach to staging (computed tomography [CT], ultrasonography, bone scanning, and, when indicated, needle biopsies) and one involving PET to detect metastases in mediastinal lymph nodes and at distant sites in 102 patients with resectable non-small-cell lung cancer. The presence of mediastinal metastatic disease was confirmed histopathologically. Distant metastases that were detected by PET were further evaluated by standard imaging tests and biopsies. Patients were followed postoperatively for six months by standard methods to detect occult metastases. Logistic-regression analysis was used to evaluate the ability of PET and CT to identify malignant mediastinal lymph nodes.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of PET for the detection of mediastinal metastases were 91 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 81 to 100 percent) and 86 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 78 to 94 percent), respectively. The corresponding values for CT were 75 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 60 to 90 percent) and 66 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 55 to 77 percent). When the results of PET and CT were adjusted for each other, only PET results were positively correlated with the histopathological findings in mediastinal lymph nodes (P<0.001). PET identified distant metastases that had not been found by standard methods in 11 of 102 patients. The sensitivity and specificity of PET for the detection of both mediastinal and distant metastatic disease were 95 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 88 to 100 percent) and 83 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 74 to 92 percent), respectively. The use of PET to identify the stage of the disease resulted in a different stage from the one determined by standard methods in 62 patients: the stage was lowered in 20 and raised in 42.
CONCLUSIONS: PET improves the rate of detection of local and distant metastases in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10911007     DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200007273430404

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  178 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances: Respiratory medicine.

Authors:  H A Kerstjens; H J Groen; W van Der Bij
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-12-08

Review 2.  18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and the staging of early lung cancer.

Authors:  G Laking; P Price
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  Preliminary experience with a new method of endoscopic transbronchial real time ultrasound guided biopsy for diagnosis of mediastinal and hilar lesions.

Authors:  M Krasnik; P Vilmann; S S Larsen; G K Jacobsen
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.139

4.  Do we need randomised trials to evaluate diagnostic procedures? For.

Authors:  H Van Tinteren; O S Hoekstra; M Boers
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-11-29       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Are health technology assessments a reliable tool in th analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors?

Authors:  Liselotte Højgaard
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Lung cancer 7: management of lung cancer in elderly patients.

Authors:  R Booton; M Jones; N Thatcher
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.139

7.  Requirements for clinical PET: comparisons within Europe.

Authors:  Michael Bedford; Michael N Maisey
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  Bone scanning in lung cancer: evidence is not sufficient to justify routine bone scanning.

Authors:  Rachel E Benamore; James J Entwisle; Mick D Peake
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-24

Review 9.  Molecular imaging for personalized cancer care.

Authors:  Moritz F Kircher; Hedvig Hricak; Steven M Larson
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 6.603

10.  Positron emission tomography using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) in the clinically negative neck: is it likely to be superior?

Authors:  Jolijn Brouwer; Remco de Bree; Emile F I Comans; Jonas A Castelijns; Otto S Hoekstra; C René Leemans
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2003-12-17       Impact factor: 2.503

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.