PURPOSE: Most early publications on integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) devices have reported the new scanner generation to be superior to conventional PET. However, few of these studies have analysed the situation where, in addition to PET, a current CT scan is available for side-by-side viewing. This fact is important, because combined PET/CT or a software-based fusion of the two modalities may improve diagnosis only in cases where side-by-side reading of PET and CT data does not lead to a definitive diagnosis. The aim of this study was to analyse which patients will profit from integrated PET/CT in terms of lesion characterization. METHODS: A total of 328 consecutively admitted patients referred for PET in whom a current CT scan was available were included in the study. The localization of all pathological PET lesions, as well as possible infiltration of adjacent anatomical structures, was assessed. RESULTS: Of 467 pathological lesions, 94.0% were correctly assessed with respect to localization and infiltration by either conventional PET alone (51.6%) or combined reading of PET and the already existing CT scans (42.4%). Hence, in only 6.0% of all lesions, affecting 6.7% of all patients, could evaluation have profited from integrated PET/CT. CONCLUSION: We conclude that side-by-side viewing of PET and CT scans is essential, as in 42.4% of all cases, combined viewing was important for a correct diagnosis in our series. In up to 6.7% of patients, integrated PET/CT might have given additional information, so that in nearly 50% of patients some form of combined viewing of PET and CT data is needed for accurate lesion characterization.
PURPOSE: Most early publications on integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) devices have reported the new scanner generation to be superior to conventional PET. However, few of these studies have analysed the situation where, in addition to PET, a current CT scan is available for side-by-side viewing. This fact is important, because combined PET/CT or a software-based fusion of the two modalities may improve diagnosis only in cases where side-by-side reading of PET and CT data does not lead to a definitive diagnosis. The aim of this study was to analyse which patients will profit from integrated PET/CT in terms of lesion characterization. METHODS: A total of 328 consecutively admitted patients referred for PET in whom a current CT scan was available were included in the study. The localization of all pathological PET lesions, as well as possible infiltration of adjacent anatomical structures, was assessed. RESULTS: Of 467 pathological lesions, 94.0% were correctly assessed with respect to localization and infiltration by either conventional PET alone (51.6%) or combined reading of PET and the already existing CT scans (42.4%). Hence, in only 6.0% of all lesions, affecting 6.7% of all patients, could evaluation have profited from integrated PET/CT. CONCLUSION: We conclude that side-by-side viewing of PET and CT scans is essential, as in 42.4% of all cases, combined viewing was important for a correct diagnosis in our series. In up to 6.7% of patients, integrated PET/CT might have given additional information, so that in nearly 50% of patients some form of combined viewing of PET and CT data is needed for accurate lesion characterization.
Authors: EhabI M Kamel; Cyrill Burger; Alfred Buck; GustavI K von Schulthess; GerhardI W Goerres Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2002-08-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: J R Roberts; M G Blum; R Arildsen; D C Drinkwater; K R Christian; T A Powers; W H Merrill Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gerhard W Goerres; Sibylle I Ziegler; Cyrill Burger; Thomas Berthold; Gustav K Von Schulthess; Alfred Buck Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gerald Antoch; Florian M Vogt; Lutz S Freudenberg; Fridun Nazaradeh; Susanne C Goehde; Jörg Barkhausen; Gerlinde Dahmen; Andreas Bockisch; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: L S Freudenberg; G Antoch; P Schütt; T Beyer; W Jentzen; S P Müller; R Görges; M R Nowrousian; A Bockisch; J F Debatin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stephanie N Histed; Maria L Lindenberg; Esther Mena; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Karen A Kurdziel Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Philippe Robin; Ravinder K Grewal; Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Grégoire Le Gal; Pierre-Yves Salaun Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Phillip H Kuo; Bruce L McClennan; Kacie Carlson; Lynn D Wilson; Richard L Edelson; Peter W Heald; Michael Girardi Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 3.488