Zvi Bar-Sever1,2, Zohar Keidar3,4, Ayelet Ben-Barak5, Rachel Bar-Shalom3, Sergey Postovsky5, Luda Guralnik6, Myriam W Ben Arush5, Ora Israel3,4. 1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, 14 Kaplan Street, Petach-Tikva, 49202, Israel. barsever@clalit.org.il. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. barsever@clalit.org.il. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 4. B. Rapaport School of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel. 5. Department of Paediatric Oncology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 6. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel.
Abstract
PURPOSE: (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging has been used in the assessment of paediatric malignancies. PET/CT increases the diagnostic accuracy in adult cancer patients. The present study assesses the incremental value of FDG PET/CT in paediatric malignancies. METHODS: A total of 118 (18)FDG PET/CT studies of 46 paediatric patients were reviewed retrospectively. PET and PET/CT results were classified as malignant, equivocal or benign, compared on a site- and study-based analysis, and also compared with the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-four sites of increased FDG uptake were detected. Discordant PET and PET/CT interpretations were found in 97 sites (30%) in 27 studies (22%). PET yielded a statistically significant higher proportion of equivocal and a lower proportion of benign lesion and study results (p<0.001) than PET/CT. With PET there were 153 benign (47%), 84 (26%) equivocal and 87 (27%) malignant sites, while PET/CT detected 226 benign (70%), 10 (3%) equivocal and 88 (27%) malignant lesions. PET/CT mainly improved the characterisation of uptake in brown fat (39%), bowel (17%), muscle (8%) and thymus (7%). The study-based analysis showed that 17 equivocal and seven positive PET studies (20%) were interpreted as benign on PET/CT, while three equivocal studies were interpreted as malignant. The study-based sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 92% and 78% respectively. CONCLUSION: PET/CT significantly improved the characterisation of abnormal (18)FDG foci in children with cancer, mainly by excluding the presence of active malignancy in sites of increased tracer activity.
PURPOSE: (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging has been used in the assessment of paediatric malignancies. PET/CT increases the diagnostic accuracy in adult cancerpatients. The present study assesses the incremental value of FDG PET/CT in paediatric malignancies. METHODS: A total of 118 (18)FDG PET/CT studies of 46 paediatric patients were reviewed retrospectively. PET and PET/CT results were classified as malignant, equivocal or benign, compared on a site- and study-based analysis, and also compared with the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-four sites of increased FDG uptake were detected. Discordant PET and PET/CT interpretations were found in 97 sites (30%) in 27 studies (22%). PET yielded a statistically significant higher proportion of equivocal and a lower proportion of benign lesion and study results (p<0.001) than PET/CT. With PET there were 153 benign (47%), 84 (26%) equivocal and 87 (27%) malignant sites, while PET/CT detected 226 benign (70%), 10 (3%) equivocal and 88 (27%) malignant lesions. PET/CT mainly improved the characterisation of uptake in brown fat (39%), bowel (17%), muscle (8%) and thymus (7%). The study-based analysis showed that 17 equivocal and seven positive PET studies (20%) were interpreted as benign on PET/CT, while three equivocal studies were interpreted as malignant. The study-based sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 92% and 78% respectively. CONCLUSION: PET/CT significantly improved the characterisation of abnormal (18)FDG foci in children with cancer, mainly by excluding the presence of active malignancy in sites of increased tracer activity.
Authors: Sue C Kaste; Scott C Howard; Elizabeth B McCarville; Matthew J Krasin; Philip G Kogos; Melissa M Hudson Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2004-11-16
Authors: Martin Allen-Auerbach; Andrew Quon; Wolfgang A Weber; Sebastian Obrzut; Tyler Crawford; Daniel H S Silverman; Osman Ratib; Michael E Phelps; Johannes Czernin Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.488
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: 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: Vicente Gilsanz; Michelle L Smith; Fariba Goodarzian; Mimi Kim; Tishya A L Wren; Houchun H Hu Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 4.406
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