H Jadvar1, H M Kherbache, J K Pinski, P S Conti. 1. Department of Radiology, PET Imaging Science Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA. jadvar@usc.edu
Abstract
AIMS: To retrospectively assess the diagnostic utility of positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in restaging renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed whole-body PET scans (45 minutes after intravenous injection of 10 - 15 mCi FDG) for restaging 25 patients (18 male, 7 female, 42 - 81 years old) with known or suspected metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Prior treatments included immunotherapy (n = 1), nephrectomy (n = 16), nephrectomy followed by chemotherapy (n = 3), by radiation therapy (n = 1), and by combined chemoradiation therapy (n = 4). Contrast-enhanced chest, abdomen and pelvis CT studies were available for all patients. Diagnostic validation was by histological sampling (n = 2) and clinical and imaging follow-up for up to 1 year (n = 23). RESULTS: PET was concordant with the findings of CT in 18 patients (3 TN, 15 TP). PET was discordant with CT in 7 patients (28% of total). PET was falsely negative in 6 of these patients and did not demonstrate hypermetabolism in pulmonary (n = 4), mediastinal (n = 2), adrenal (n = 1) and lytic osseous (n = 2) metastatic lesions. PET was falsely positive in the remaining 1 patient in the discordant group with lumbar facet arthropathy. The diagnostic performance of PET in detection of recurrent and metastatic renal cell carcinoma revealed a sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 75%, accuracy of 72%, negative predictive value of 33% and positive predictive value of 94%. CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET demonstrates modest accuracy in the diagnostic imaging evaluation of patients with suspected or known metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A negative study may not exclude disease while a positive study is suspicious for malignancy.
AIMS: To retrospectively assess the diagnostic utility of positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in restaging renal cell carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed whole-body PET scans (45 minutes after intravenous injection of 10 - 15 mCi FDG) for restaging 25 patients (18 male, 7 female, 42 - 81 years old) with known or suspected metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Prior treatments included immunotherapy (n = 1), nephrectomy (n = 16), nephrectomy followed by chemotherapy (n = 3), by radiation therapy (n = 1), and by combined chemoradiation therapy (n = 4). Contrast-enhanced chest, abdomen and pelvis CT studies were available for all patients. Diagnostic validation was by histological sampling (n = 2) and clinical and imaging follow-up for up to 1 year (n = 23). RESULTS: PET was concordant with the findings of CT in 18 patients (3 TN, 15 TP). PET was discordant with CT in 7 patients (28% of total). PET was falsely negative in 6 of these patients and did not demonstrate hypermetabolism in pulmonary (n = 4), mediastinal (n = 2), adrenal (n = 1) and lytic osseous (n = 2) metastatic lesions. PET was falsely positive in the remaining 1 patient in the discordant group with lumbar facet arthropathy. The diagnostic performance of PET in detection of recurrent and metastatic renal cell carcinoma revealed a sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 75%, accuracy of 72%, negative predictive value of 33% and positive predictive value of 94%. CONCLUSIONS:FDG PET demonstrates modest accuracy in the diagnostic imaging evaluation of patients with suspected or known metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A negative study may not exclude disease while a positive study is suspicious for malignancy.
Authors: Ubaldo E Martinez-Outschoorn; Stephanos Pavlides; Anthony Howell; Richard G Pestell; Herbert B Tanowitz; Federica Sotgia; Michael P Lisanti Journal: Int J Biochem Cell Biol Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 5.085
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Ullrich G Mueller-Lisse; Ulrike L Mueller-Lisse; Thomas Meindl; Eva Coppenrath; Christoph Degenhart; Anno Graser; Michael Scherr; Maximilian F Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 5.315