PURPOSE: Limited information is available on the use of positron emission tomography (PET) in paediatric oncology. The aim of this study was to review the impact of PET on the management of paediatric patients scanned over a 10-year period. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-five consecutive oncology patients aged 11 months to 17 years were included. Two hundred and thirty-seven scans were performed. Diagnoses included lymphoma (60 patients), central nervous system (CNS) tumour (59), sarcoma (19), plexiform neurofibroma with suspected malignant change (13) and other tumours (14). A questionnaire was sent to the referring clinician to determine whether the PET scan had altered management and whether overall the PET scan was thought to be helpful. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-nine (80%) questionnaires for 126 patients were returned (63 relating to lymphoma, 62 to CNS tumours, 30 to sarcoma, 16 to plexiform neurofibroma and 18 to other tumours). PET changed disease management in 46 (24%) cases and was helpful in 141 (75%) cases. PET findings were verified by histology, clinical follow-up or other investigations in 141 cases (75%). The returned questionnaires indicated that PET had led to a management change in 20 (32%) lymphoma cases, nine (15%) CNS tumours, four (13%) sarcomas, nine (56%) plexiform neurofibromas and four (22%) cases of other tumours. PET was thought to be helpful in 47 (75%) lymphoma cases, 48 (77%) CNS tumours, 24 (80%) sarcomas, 11 (69%) neurofibromas and 11 (61%) cases of other tumours. PET findings were verified in 44 (70%) lymphoma cases, 53 (85%) CNS tumours, 21 (70%) sarcomas, 12 (75%) neurofibromas and 11 (61%) other tumour cases. CONCLUSION: PET imaging of children with cancer is accurate and practical. PET alters management and is deemed helpful (with or without management change) in a significant number of patients, and the results are comparable with the figures published for the adult oncology population.
PURPOSE: Limited information is available on the use of positron emission tomography (PET) in paediatric oncology. The aim of this study was to review the impact of PET on the management of paediatric patients scanned over a 10-year period. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-five consecutive oncology patients aged 11 months to 17 years were included. Two hundred and thirty-seven scans were performed. Diagnoses included lymphoma (60 patients), central nervous system (CNS) tumour (59), sarcoma (19), plexiform neurofibroma with suspected malignant change (13) and other tumours (14). A questionnaire was sent to the referring clinician to determine whether the PET scan had altered management and whether overall the PET scan was thought to be helpful. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-nine (80%) questionnaires for 126 patients were returned (63 relating to lymphoma, 62 to CNS tumours, 30 to sarcoma, 16 to plexiform neurofibroma and 18 to other tumours). PET changed disease management in 46 (24%) cases and was helpful in 141 (75%) cases. PET findings were verified by histology, clinical follow-up or other investigations in 141 cases (75%). The returned questionnaires indicated that PET had led to a management change in 20 (32%) lymphoma cases, nine (15%) CNS tumours, four (13%) sarcomas, nine (56%) plexiform neurofibromas and four (22%) cases of other tumours. PET was thought to be helpful in 47 (75%) lymphoma cases, 48 (77%) CNS tumours, 24 (80%) sarcomas, 11 (69%) neurofibromas and 11 (61%) cases of other tumours. PET findings were verified in 44 (70%) lymphoma cases, 53 (85%) CNS tumours, 21 (70%) sarcomas, 12 (75%) neurofibromas and 11 (61%) other tumour cases. CONCLUSION: PET imaging of children with cancer is accurate and practical. PET alters management and is deemed helpful (with or without management change) in a significant number of patients, and the results are comparable with the figures published for the adult oncology population.
Authors: Benoit Pirotte; Serge Goldman; Sacha Salzberg; David Wikler; Philippe David; Arlette Vandesteene; Patrick Van Bogaert; Isabelle Salmon; Jacques Brotchi; Marc Levivier Journal: Pediatr Neurosurg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 1.162
Authors: Thomas F Hany; Esmaiel Gharehpapagh; Ehab M Kamel; Alfred Buck; Jean Himms-Hagen; Gustav K von Schulthess Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-08-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Meri Utriainen; Liisa Metsähonkala; Toivo T Salmi; Tapio Utriainen; Hannu Kalimo; Helena Pihko; Anne Mäkipernaa; Arja Harila-Saari; Sirkku Jyrkkiö; Jukka Laine; Kjell Någren; Heikki Minn Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: F Montravers; D McNamara; J Landman-Parker; D Grahek; K Kerrou; N Younsi; M Wioland; G Leverger; J N Talbot Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2002-06-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Brian H Kushner; Michael P Laquaglia; William L Gerald; Kim Kramer; Shakeel Modak; Nai-Kong V Cheung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Josefine S Kornerup; Patrik Brodin; Charlotte Birk Christensen; Thomas Björk-Eriksson; Anne Kiil-Berthelsen; Lise Borgwardt; Per Munck Af Rosenschöld Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2014-11-07
Authors: J S Kornerup; N P Brodin; T Björk-Eriksson; C Birk Christensen; A Kiil-Berthelsen; M C Aznar; C Hollensen; E Markova; P Munck Af Rosenschöld Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-12-12 Impact factor: 3.039