Literature DB >> 17204716

Screening for cancer with PET and PET/CT: potential and limitations.

Heiko Schöder1, Mithat Gönen.   

Abstract

Screening for cancer remains a very emotional and hotly debated issue in contemporary medical practice. An analysis of published data reveals a multitude of opinions based on a limited amount of reliable data. Even for breast cancer screening, which is now widely practiced in the United States and many European countries, there is continuing controversy regarding the appropriate age limits for screening mammography and, in fact, concerning the value of mammography itself. Similarly, there is no agreement as to whether screening for lung or prostate cancer is meaningful as currently practiced. Recommendations and decisions regarding cancer screening should be based on reliable data, not good intention, assumptions, or speculation. Therefore, we first explain the underlying principles and premises of screening and then briefly discuss current controversies regarding screening for breast, prostate, and lung cancers. Recently, some authors advocated CT, PET, or PET/CT for whole-body screening without support from reliable data. We discuss the potential financial, legal, and radiation safety implications associated with whole-body CT or PET cancer screening. We conclude from the available data that neither CT nor PET/CT cancer screening is currently warranted. Far from providing a desirable binary answer (presence of absence of cancer), in nonselected populations the procedures frequently yield equivocal or indeterminate findings that require further evaluation, with associated costs and potential complications. The clinical and statistical relevance of occasionally detected cancers is likely too low to justify population-wide screening efforts with these 2 imaging modalities. Ultimately, the true utility, or lack thereof, of PET and PET/CT for cancer screening can be assessed only in a prospective randomized trial. Because of prohibitive costs and the required length of follow-up, it is unlikely that such a trial will ever be conducted. Rather than spending time and resources on screening studies, medical practitioners should continue using whole-body PET/CT for diagnosing, staging, and restaging cancer and for monitoring treatment effects. Researchers should also investigate the utility of whole-body PET/CT for the surveillance of selected groups of patients who have cancer, who have completed curative treatment, but who remain at high risk for recurrent disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17204716

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


  44 in total

1.  Combined optical and X-ray tomosynthesis breast imaging.

Authors:  Qianqian Fang; Juliette Selb; Stefan A Carp; Gregory Boverman; Eric L Miller; Dana H Brooks; Richard H Moore; Daniel B Kopans; David A Boas
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-09       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Pre-clinical PET/MR: technological advances and new perspectives in biomedical research.

Authors:  Hans F Wehrl; Martin S Judenhofer; Stefan Wiehr; Bernd J Pichler
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  FLT-PET imaging of radiation responses in murine tumors.

Authors:  M H Pan; S C Huang; Y P Liao; D Schaue; C C Wang; D B Stout; J R Barrio; W H McBride
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 3.488

4.  Hepatic FDG uptake is associated with future cardiovascular events in asymptomatic individuals with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Authors:  Seung Hwan Moon; Sun-Pyo Hong; Young Seok Cho; Tae Soo Noh; Joon Young Choi; Byung-Tae Kim; Kyung-Han Lee
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Targeting breast cancer with sugar-coated carbon nanotubes.

Authors:  Cale D Fahrenholtz; Mallinath Hadimani; S Bruce King; Suzy V Torti; Ravi Singh
Journal:  Nanomedicine (Lond)       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 5.307

Review 6.  Sniffer dogs as part of a bimodal bionic research approach to develop a lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Enole Boedeker; Godehard Friedel; Thorsten Walles
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-02-17

7.  Improved short tau inversion recovery (iSTIR) for increased tumor conspicuity in the abdomen.

Authors:  Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Karen S Lee; Aya Yassin; Jean H Brittain; Ivan Pedrosa; Neil M Rofsky; David C Alsop
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 2.310

8.  Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention.

Authors:  Anne Marie Lennon; Adam H Buchanan; Isaac Kinde; Andrew Warren; Ashley Honushefsky; Ariella T Cohain; David H Ledbetter; Fred Sanfilippo; Kathleen Sheridan; Dillenia Rosica; Christian S Adonizio; Hee Jung Hwang; Kamel Lahouel; Joshua D Cohen; Christopher Douville; Aalpen A Patel; Leonardo N Hagmann; David D Rolston; Nirav Malani; Shibin Zhou; Chetan Bettegowda; David L Diehl; Bobbi Urban; Christopher D Still; Lisa Kann; Julie I Woods; Zachary M Salvati; Joseph Vadakara; Rosemary Leeming; Prianka Bhattacharya; Carroll Walter; Alex Parker; Christoph Lengauer; Alison Klein; Cristian Tomasetti; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  The value of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in asymptomatic examinees with unexplained elevated blood carcinoembryonic antigen levels.

Authors:  Wenfeng Li; Weiwei Yin; Rongying Ou; Ting Chen; Lingling Xiong; Dezhi Cheng; Deyao Xie; Xiangwu Zheng; Yunsheng Xu; Liang Zhao
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-10-24       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 10.  Role and cost effectiveness of PET/CT in management of patients with cancer.

Authors:  Muhammad Wasif Saif; Ifigenia Tzannou; Nektaria Makrilia; Kostas Syrigos
Journal:  Yale J Biol Med       Date:  2010-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.