PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit of combined [(18)F]FDG PET/CT in patients with malignant lymphoma as compared to separately performed PET and CT. METHODS: Overall, 100 patients with Hodgkin's disease (HD) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) were included in this study. Co-registered PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG and contrast medium was performed in 50 consecutive patients with NHL (n=38) or HD (n=12) for initial staging (IS) (n=12) or re-treatment staging (RS) (n=38). Another 50 patients with NHL (n=32) or HD (n=18) underwent separate PET and CT investigations within a time frame of 10 days for IS (n=22) or RS (n=28). Lymphoma involvement was separately evaluated for seven different regions in each patient. Each patient had clinical follow-up evaluation for >6 months. PET and CT data were analysed separately as well as side-by-side or in fused mode. RESULTS: In the PET/CT group, region-based evaluation for lymphoma involvement suggested a sensitivity/specificity of 85%/91% for CT, 98%/99% for PET and 98%/99% for PET/CT. In the PET and CT group, region-based evaluation showed a sensitivity/specificity of 87%/80% for CT, 98%/99% for PET and 98%/100% for PET and CT read side by side. CONCLUSION: PET was superior to CT alone and was improved further by side-by-side reading of both examinations. However, no significant difference was observed between PET/CT and separate PET and CT imaging in patients with lymphoma.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit of combined [(18)F]FDG PET/CT in patients with malignant lymphoma as compared to separately performed PET and CT. METHODS: Overall, 100 patients with Hodgkin's disease (HD) or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) were included in this study. Co-registered PET/CT with [(18)F]FDG and contrast medium was performed in 50 consecutive patients with NHL (n=38) or HD (n=12) for initial staging (IS) (n=12) or re-treatment staging (RS) (n=38). Another 50 patients with NHL (n=32) or HD (n=18) underwent separate PET and CT investigations within a time frame of 10 days for IS (n=22) or RS (n=28). Lymphoma involvement was separately evaluated for seven different regions in each patient. Each patient had clinical follow-up evaluation for >6 months. PET and CT data were analysed separately as well as side-by-side or in fused mode. RESULTS: In the PET/CT group, region-based evaluation for lymphoma involvement suggested a sensitivity/specificity of 85%/91% for CT, 98%/99% for PET and 98%/99% for PET/CT. In the PET and CT group, region-based evaluation showed a sensitivity/specificity of 87%/80% for CT, 98%/99% for PET and 98%/100% for PET and CT read side by side. CONCLUSION: PET was superior to CT alone and was improved further by side-by-side reading of both examinations. However, no significant difference was observed between PET/CT and separate PET and CT imaging in patients with lymphoma.
Authors: Andrew Wirth; John F Seymour; Rodney J Hicks; Robert Ware; Richard Fisher; Miles Prince; Michael P MacManus; Gail Ryan; Henry Januszewicz; Max Wolf Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: M R Weihrauch; D Re; S Bischoff; M Dietlein; K Scheidhauer; B Krug; F Textoris; S Ansén; J Franklin; H Bohlen; J Wolf; H Schicha; V Diehl; H Tesch Journal: Ann Hematol Date: 2001-12-12 Impact factor: 3.673
Authors: T A Lister; D Crowther; S B Sutcliffe; E Glatstein; G P Canellos; R C Young; S A Rosenberg; C A Coltman; M Tubiana Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Niklaus G Schaefer; Thomas F Hany; Christian Taverna; Burkhardt Seifert; Katrin D M Stumpe; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Annemieke S Littooij; Thomas C Kwee; Ignasi Barber; Claudio Granata; Malou A Vermoolen; Goya Enríquez; József Zsíros; Shui Yen Soh; Bart de Keizer; Frederik J A Beek; Monique G Hobbelink; Marc B Bierings; Jaap Stoker; Rutger A J Nievelstein Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Brian J Scott; Vanja C Douglas; Tarik Tihan; James L Rubenstein; S Andrew Josephson Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 18.302