UNLABELLED: After potentially curative therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), masses or symptoms suggestive of relapse are common but may be difficult to characterize. Early detection is important because salvage therapies are available for localized recurrence. This study evaluated whether (18)F-FDG PET is useful and predictive of outcome in this setting. METHODS: For 63 consecutive patients with suspected relapse >6 mo after definitive treatment of NSCLC, the apparent extent of disease on conventional restaging was compared with that on FDG PET. Patients with already confirmed systemic metastases were excluded unless locally aggressive treatment of these was being considered. Serial imaging and pathologic results were obtained during a median follow-up of 19 mo to validate diagnostic findings. Prognostic significance was tested using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: PET had positive findings in 41 of 42 patients with confirmed relapse (sensitivity, 98%). No disease was evident during a minimum follow-up of 12 mo in 14 of 15 patients with clinically suspected relapse but negative PET findings (negative predictive value, 93%). PET induced a major management change in 40 patients (63%), including 6 whose treatment was changed from curative to palliative, 3 whose treatment was changed from palliative to curative, and 9 for whom negative PET findings prevented active management. Both the presence (P = 0.012) and the extent (P < 0.0001) of relapse on PET were highly significant prognostic factors. There was also significant prognostic stratification based on the treatment delivered after the PET study (P = 0.011), but after adjustment for this treatment, PET status remained highly predictive of survival. CONCLUSION: PET better assesses the status of disease and stratifies prognosis than does conventional staging, affects patient management, and should be incorporated into paradigms for suspected recurrence of NSCLC.
UNLABELLED: After potentially curative therapy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), masses or symptoms suggestive of relapse are common but may be difficult to characterize. Early detection is important because salvage therapies are available for localized recurrence. This study evaluated whether (18)F-FDG PET is useful and predictive of outcome in this setting. METHODS: For 63 consecutive patients with suspected relapse >6 mo after definitive treatment of NSCLC, the apparent extent of disease on conventional restaging was compared with that on FDG PET. Patients with already confirmed systemic metastases were excluded unless locally aggressive treatment of these was being considered. Serial imaging and pathologic results were obtained during a median follow-up of 19 mo to validate diagnostic findings. Prognostic significance was tested using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: PET had positive findings in 41 of 42 patients with confirmed relapse (sensitivity, 98%). No disease was evident during a minimum follow-up of 12 mo in 14 of 15 patients with clinically suspected relapse but negative PET findings (negative predictive value, 93%). PET induced a major management change in 40 patients (63%), including 6 whose treatment was changed from curative to palliative, 3 whose treatment was changed from palliative to curative, and 9 for whom negative PET findings prevented active management. Both the presence (P = 0.012) and the extent (P < 0.0001) of relapse on PET were highly significant prognostic factors. There was also significant prognostic stratification based on the treatment delivered after the PET study (P = 0.011), but after adjustment for this treatment, PET status remained highly predictive of survival. CONCLUSION: PET better assesses the status of disease and stratifies prognosis than does conventional staging, affects patient management, and should be incorporated into paradigms for suspected recurrence of NSCLC.
Authors: Dirk Hellwig; Andreas Gröschel; Thomas P Graeter; Anne P Hellwig; Ursula Nestle; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Gerhard W Sybrecht; Carl-Martin Kirsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-09-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Alexander J Antoniou; Charles Marcus; Abdel K Tahari; Richard L Wahl; Rathan M Subramaniam Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Willem Grootjans; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Esther G C Troost; Eric P Visser; Wim J G Oyen; Johan Bussink Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 66.675