BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to study the effect of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) on the diagnosis and management of clinically problematic patients with suspected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A prospective before-after study was performed in a cohort of all 164 patients (university/community settings) referred for PET between August 1997 and July 1999. PET was restricted to cases where non-invasive tests had failed to solve clinical problems. The impact on diagnostic understanding and management was assessed using questionnaires (intended treatment without PET, actual treatment choice after PET, post hoc clinical assessment). RESULTS: Diagnostic problems especially pertained to unclear radiological findings (n=112; 63%), mediastinal staging (n=36; 20%), and distant staging issues (n=16; 9%). PET findings were validated by reviewing medical records. PET had a positive influence on diagnostic understanding in 84%. Improved diagnostic understanding solely based on PET was reported in 26%. According to referring physicians, PET resulted in beneficial change of treatment in 50%. Cancelled surgery was the most frequent change in treatment after PET (35%). CONCLUSION: FDG PET applied as "add on" technology in patients with these clinical problems appears to be a clinically useful tool, directly improving treatment choice in 25% of patients. The value of increased confidence induced by PET scanning requires further evaluation.
BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to study the effect of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) on the diagnosis and management of clinically problematic patients with suspected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A prospective before-after study was performed in a cohort of all 164 patients (university/community settings) referred for PET between August 1997 and July 1999. PET was restricted to cases where non-invasive tests had failed to solve clinical problems. The impact on diagnostic understanding and management was assessed using questionnaires (intended treatment without PET, actual treatment choice after PET, post hoc clinical assessment). RESULTS: Diagnostic problems especially pertained to unclear radiological findings (n=112; 63%), mediastinal staging (n=36; 20%), and distant staging issues (n=16; 9%). PET findings were validated by reviewing medical records. PET had a positive influence on diagnostic understanding in 84%. Improved diagnostic understanding solely based on PET was reported in 26%. According to referring physicians, PET resulted in beneficial change of treatment in 50%. Cancelled surgery was the most frequent change in treatment after PET (35%). CONCLUSION:FDG PET applied as "add on" technology in patients with these clinical problems appears to be a clinically useful tool, directly improving treatment choice in 25% of patients. The value of increased confidence induced by PET scanning requires further evaluation.
Authors: M Eccles; N Steen; J Grimshaw; L Thomas; P McNamee; J Soutter; J Wilsdon; L Matowe; G Needham; F Gilbert; S Bond Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-05-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Wittenberg; H V Fineberg; E B Black; R H Kirkpatrick; D L Schaffer; M K Ikeda; J T Ferrucci Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1978-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: V Kalff; R J Hicks; M P MacManus; D S Binns; A F McKenzie; R E Ware; A Hogg; D L Ball Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R M Pieterman; J W van Putten; J J Meuzelaar; E L Mooyaart; W Vaalburg; G H Koëter; V Fidler; J Pruim; H J Groen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-07-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Harm van Tinteren; Otto S Hoekstra; Egbert F Smit; Jan H A M van den Bergh; Ad J M Schreurs; Roland A L M Stallaert; Piet C M van Velthoven; Emile F I Comans; Fred W Diepenhorst; Paul Verboom; Johan C van Mourik; Pieter E Postmus; Maarten Boers; Gerrit J J Teule Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-04-20 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Christina Pfannenberg; Brigitte Gueckel; Lisa Wang; Sergios Gatidis; Susann-Cathrin Olthof; Werner Vach; Matthias Reimold; Christian la Fougere; Konstantin Nikolaou; Peter Martus Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Gerarda J Herder; Richard P Golding; Otto S Hoekstra; Emile F Comans; Gerrit J Teule; Pieter E Postmus; Egbert F Smit Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: N L Robertson; H Hricak; Y Sonoda; R E Sosa; M Benz; G Lyons; N R Abu-Rustum; E Sala; H A Vargas Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Frederike Bensch; A H Brouwers; M N Lub-de Hooge; J R de Jong; B van der Vegt; S Sleijfer; E G E de Vries; C P Schröder Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sietske A Smulders; Chad M Gundy; Arthur van Lingen; Emile F Comans; Frank W J M Smeenk; Otto S Hoekstra Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.488