Literature DB >> 16157528

18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of penile cancer.

Bernhard Scher1, Michael Seitz, Martin Reiser, Edwin Hungerhuber, Klaus Hahn, Reinhold Tiling, Peter Herzog, Maximilian Reiser, Peter Schneede, Stefan Dresel.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The value of PET or PET/CT with (18)F-FDG for the staging of penile cancer has yet to be determined. The objective of this study was to investigate the pattern of (18)F-FDG uptake in the primary malignancy and its metastases and to determine the diagnostic value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the staging and restaging of penile cancer.
METHODS: Thirteen patients (mean +/- SD age, 64 +/- 14.0 y) with suspected penile cancer or suspected recurrent disease were examined with a Gemini PET/CT system (200 MBq of (18)F-FDG). The reference standard was based on histopathologic findings obtained at biopsy or during surgery.
RESULTS: Both the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastases exhibited a pattern of (18)F-FDG uptake typical for malignancy. Sensitivity in the detection of primary lesions was 75% (6/8), and specificity was 75% (3/4). On a per-patient basis, sensitivity in the detection of lymph node metastases was 80% (4/5), and specificity was 100% (8/8). On a nodal-group basis, PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 89% (8/9) in the detection of metastases in the superficial inguinal lymph node basins and a sensitivity of 100% (7/7) in the deep inguinal and obturator lymph node basins. The mean +/- SD maximum standardized uptake value for the 8 primary lesions was 5.3 +/- 3.7, and that for the 16 lymph node metastases was 4.6 +/- 2.0.
CONCLUSION: According to our results, the main indication for (18)F-FDG PET in the primary staging or follow-up of penile cancer patients may be the prognostically crucial search for lymph node metastases. With the use of a PET/CT unit, the additional information provided by CT may be especially useful for planning surgery. Implementing (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in future staging algorithms may lead to a more precise and stage-appropriate therapeutic strategy. Furthermore, invasive procedures with a high morbidity rate, such as general bilateral lymphadenectomy, may be avoided.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16157528

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  19 in total

Review 1.  Advanced penile cancer.

Authors:  Jonathan E Heinlen; David D Buethe; Daniel Joseph Culkin
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2011-08-04       Impact factor: 2.370

2.  18F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring induction chemotherapy in patients with primary inoperable penile carcinoma: first clinical results.

Authors:  Niels M Graafland; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Hendrik J Teertstra; J Martijn Kerst; Andries M Bergman; Simon Horenblas
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-03-27       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  [Diagnostic work-up for lymph node metastases of urological tumors].

Authors:  M Seitz; M Bader; F Strittmatter; C Gratzke; D Tilki; A Roosen; B Schlenker; O Reich; C Stief
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  [Penile carcinoma: diagnosis and therapy].

Authors:  C Protzel; O W Hakenberg
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  [The influence of the T stage on the risk of metastasis of penis cancer: T1 vs. T2].

Authors:  C M Naumann; C van der Horst; B Volkmer; F Kurtz; F J Martinéz Portillo; C Seif; S Hautmann; P M Braun; R Hautmann; K-P Jünemann
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 6.  [Value of positron emission tomography in urological neoplasms: more form than substance?].

Authors:  J Müller; M Schrader; A J Schrader; M Höpfner; F Zengerling
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  What next? Managing lymph nodes in men with penile cancer.

Authors:  Michael Leveridge; D Robert Siemens; Christopher Morash
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  18F-FDG PET/CT as a prognostic factor in penile cancer.

Authors:  André Salazar; Eduardo Paulino Júnior; Paulo Guilherme O Salles; Raul Silva-Filho; Edna A Reis; Marcelo Mamede
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  Imaging in primary penile cancer: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Rohit Kochhar; Ben Taylor; Vijay Sangar
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Penile cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Authors:  Peter E Clark; Philippe E Spiess; Neeraj Agarwal; Matthew C Biagioli; Mario A Eisenberger; Richard E Greenberg; Harry W Herr; Brant A Inman; Deborah A Kuban; Timothy M Kuzel; Subodh M Lele; Jeff Michalski; Lance Pagliaro; Sumanta K Pal; Anthony Patterson; Elizabeth R Plimack; Kamal S Pohar; Michael P Porter; Jerome P Richie; Wade J Sexton; William U Shipley; Eric J Small; Donald L Trump; Geoffrey Wile; Timothy G Wilson; Mary Dwyer; Maria Ho
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 11.908

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.