PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of [18F]fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) on the primary staging of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: FDG-PET was performed in 120 consecutive patients with SCLC during primary staging. In addition, brain examinations with both FDG-PET and cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) were performed in 91 patients. Results of FDG-PET were compared with those of conventional staging procedures. FDG-PET detected markedly increased FDG uptake in the primary tumours of all 120 patients (sensitivity 100%). RESULTS: Complete agreement between FDG-PET results and other staging procedures was observed in 75 patients. Differences occurred in 45 patients at 65 sites. In 47 sites the FDG-PET results were proven to be correct, and in ten, incorrect. In the remaining eight sites, the discrepancies could not be clarified. In 14/120 patients, FDG-PET caused a stage migration, correctly upstaging ten patients to extensive disease and downstaging three patients by not confirming metastases of the adrenal glands suspected on the basis of CT. Only 1/120 patients was incorrectly staged by FDG-PET, owing to failure to detect brain metastases. In all cases the stage migration led to a significant change in the treatment protocol. Sensitivity of FDG-PET was significantly superior to that of CT in the detection of extrathoracic lymph node involvement (100% vs 70%, specificity 98% vs 94%) and distant metastases except to the brain (98% vs 83%, specificity 92% vs 79%). However, FDG-PET was significantly less sensitive than cranial MRI/CT in the detection of brain metastases (46% vs 100%, specificity 97% vs 100%). CONCLUSION: The introduction of FDG-PET in the diagnostic evaluation of SCLC will improve the staging results and affect patient management, and may reduce the number of tests and invasive procedures.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of [18F]fluorodeoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) on the primary staging of patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS:FDG-PET was performed in 120 consecutive patients with SCLC during primary staging. In addition, brain examinations with both FDG-PET and cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) were performed in 91 patients. Results of FDG-PET were compared with those of conventional staging procedures. FDG-PET detected markedly increased FDG uptake in the primary tumours of all 120 patients (sensitivity 100%). RESULTS: Complete agreement between FDG-PET results and other staging procedures was observed in 75 patients. Differences occurred in 45 patients at 65 sites. In 47 sites the FDG-PET results were proven to be correct, and in ten, incorrect. In the remaining eight sites, the discrepancies could not be clarified. In 14/120 patients, FDG-PET caused a stage migration, correctly upstaging ten patients to extensive disease and downstaging three patients by not confirming metastases of the adrenal glands suspected on the basis of CT. Only 1/120 patients was incorrectly staged by FDG-PET, owing to failure to detect brain metastases. In all cases the stage migration led to a significant change in the treatment protocol. Sensitivity of FDG-PET was significantly superior to that of CT in the detection of extrathoracic lymph node involvement (100% vs 70%, specificity 98% vs 94%) and distant metastases except to the brain (98% vs 83%, specificity 92% vs 79%). However, FDG-PET was significantly less sensitive than cranial MRI/CT in the detection of brain metastases (46% vs 100%, specificity 97% vs 100%). CONCLUSION: The introduction of FDG-PET in the diagnostic evaluation of SCLC will improve the staging results and affect patient management, and may reduce the number of tests and invasive procedures.
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: Robert Chin; Trent W McCain; Antonius A Miller; Donnie P Dunagan; Jose Acostamadiedo; L Douglas Case; Beth A Harkness; Lee P Adler; Edward F Haponik Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Alicia Samuels; Asma Ghafoor; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Patricia Moretto; Lori Wood; Urban Emmenegger; Normand Blais; Som Dave Mukherjee; Eric Winquist; Eric Charles Belanger; Robert Macrae; Alexander Balogh; Ilias Cagiannos; Wassim Kassouf; Peter Black; Piotr Czaykowski; Joel Gingerich; Scott North; Scott Ernst; Suzanne Richter; Srikala Sridhar; M Neil Reaume; Denis Soulieres; Andrea Eisen; Christina M Canil Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Adam C Riegel; M Kara Bucci; Osama R Mawlawi; Valen Johnson; Moiz Ahmad; Xiaojun Sun; Dershan Luo; Adam G Chandler; Tinsu Pan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Judith van Loon; Claudia Offermann; Michel Ollers; Wouter van Elmpt; Erik Vegt; Ali Rahmy; Anne-Marie C Dingemans; Philippe Lambin; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Joerg Stattaus; Steffen Hahn; Thomas Gauler; Wilfried Eberhardt; Stefan P Mueller; Michael Forsting; Susanne C Ladd Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-08-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arun Azad; Fiona Chionh; Andrew M Scott; Szeting T Lee; Sam U Berlangieri; Shane White; Paul L Mitchell Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 3.488