PURPOSE: To prospectively study the impact of (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) on clinical management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred five consecutive patients with NSCLC undergoing (18)F FDG PET were analyzed. Before PET, referring physicians recorded scan indication, conventional clinical stage, and proposed treatment plan. PET scan results were reported in conjunction with available clinical and imaging data, including results of computed tomography (CT). Subsequent management and appropriateness of PET-induced changes were assessed by follow-up for at least 6 months or until the patient's death. RESULTS: Indications for PET were primary staging (n = 59), restaging (n = 34), and suspected malignancy subsequently proven to be NSCLC (n = 12). In 27 (26%) of 105 of cases, PET results led to a change from curative to palliative therapy by upstaging disease extent. Validity of the PET result was established in all but one case. PET appropriately downstaged 10 of 16 patients initially planned for palliative therapy, allowing either potentially curative treatment (four patients) or no treatment (six patients). PET influenced the radiation delivery in 22 (65%) of 34 patients who subsequently received radical radiotherapy. Twelve patients considered probably inoperable on conventional imaging studies were downstaged by PET and underwent potentially curative surgery. PET missed only one primary tumor (5-mm scar carcinoma). CT and PET understaged three of 20 surgical patients (two with N1 lesions < 5 mm and one with unrecognized atrial involvement), and PET missed one small intrapulmonary metastasis apparent on CT. No pathological N2 disease was missed on PET. CONCLUSION: FDG PET scanning changed or influenced management decisions in 70 patients (67%) with NSCLC. Patients were frequently spared unnecessary treatment, and management was more appropriately targeted.
PURPOSE: To prospectively study the impact of (18)F fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) on clinical management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred five consecutive patients with NSCLC undergoing (18)F FDG PET were analyzed. Before PET, referring physicians recorded scan indication, conventional clinical stage, and proposed treatment plan. PET scan results were reported in conjunction with available clinical and imaging data, including results of computed tomography (CT). Subsequent management and appropriateness of PET-induced changes were assessed by follow-up for at least 6 months or until the patient's death. RESULTS: Indications for PET were primary staging (n = 59), restaging (n = 34), and suspected malignancy subsequently proven to be NSCLC (n = 12). In 27 (26%) of 105 of cases, PET results led to a change from curative to palliative therapy by upstaging disease extent. Validity of the PET result was established in all but one case. PET appropriately downstaged 10 of 16 patients initially planned for palliative therapy, allowing either potentially curative treatment (four patients) or no treatment (six patients). PET influenced the radiation delivery in 22 (65%) of 34 patients who subsequently received radical radiotherapy. Twelve patients considered probably inoperable on conventional imaging studies were downstaged by PET and underwent potentially curative surgery. PET missed only one primary tumor (5-mm scar carcinoma). CT and PET understaged three of 20 surgical patients (two with N1 lesions < 5 mm and one with unrecognized atrial involvement), and PET missed one small intrapulmonary metastasis apparent on CT. No pathological N2 disease was missed on PET. CONCLUSION: FDG PET scanning changed or influenced management decisions in 70 patients (67%) with NSCLC. Patients were frequently spared unnecessary treatment, and management was more appropriately targeted.
Authors: G Mangili; M Picchio; S Sironi; R Viganò; E Rabaiotti; D Bornaghi; V Bettinardi; C Crivellaro; C Messa; F Fazio Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Martin Hetzel; Holger Schirrmeister; Gisela Halter; Peter Möller; Clemens Kratochwil; Andreas Wahl; Gerhard Glatting; Felix M Mottaghy; Torsten Mattfeldt; Bernd Neumaier; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-12-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Satoshi Takeuchi; Benjapa Khiewvan; Patricia S Fox; Stephen G Swisher; Eric M Rohren; Roland L Bassett; Homer A Macapinlac Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Helmut Dittmann; Bernhard Matthias Dohmen; Frank Paulsen; Kai Eichhorn; Susanne Martina Eschmann; Marius Horger; Manfred Wehrmann; Hans Juergen Machulla; Roland Bares Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-07-26 Impact factor: 9.236