PURPOSE: To evaluate FDG-PET for staging, grading, preoperative response assessment and posttherapeutic evaluation in children with Wilms tumour (WT). METHODS: In this study, 23 FDG-PET examinations in 12 paediatric patients (female, n = 5; male, n = 7; age, 1-19 years) with WT (primary, n = 9; relapsed, n = 3) were analysed. All patients were examined with conventional imaging methods (CIM) according to the SIOP2001/GPOH trial protocol. Additionally, FDG-PET/PET-CT was performed for staging (n = 12), preoperative response assessment (n = 6) and posttherapeutic evaluation (n = 5). Imaging results of FDG-PET and CIM were analysed regarding the accuracy in tumour visualisation, impact on therapeutic management and preoperative response assessment, with clinical follow-up and histopathology as the standard of reference. RESULTS: FDG-PET and CIM showed concordant results for staging of primary WT, whereas FDG-PET was superior in 1/3 cases with recurrent WT. Concerning histological differentiation, one case with anaplastic WT had an standard uptake value (SUV) of 12.3, which was remarkably higher than the average SUV in the eight cases with intermediate risk histology. No parameter analysed for PET or CIM was reliably predictive for histological regression or clinical outcome. After completion of therapy, FDG-PET was superior to CIM in 2/5 cases in detecting residual disease with therapeutic relevance. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET does not provide additional information to the traditional imaging work-up for staging WT patients, preoperative response assessment and clinical outcome. FDG-PET was advantageous in ruling out residual disease after completion of first line treatment and in pretherapeutic staging of relapse patients. Furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation of initial SUV and histological differentiation.
PURPOSE: To evaluate FDG-PET for staging, grading, preoperative response assessment and posttherapeutic evaluation in children with Wilms tumour (WT). METHODS: In this study, 23 FDG-PET examinations in 12 paediatric patients (female, n = 5; male, n = 7; age, 1-19 years) with WT (primary, n = 9; relapsed, n = 3) were analysed. All patients were examined with conventional imaging methods (CIM) according to the SIOP2001/GPOH trial protocol. Additionally, FDG-PET/PET-CT was performed for staging (n = 12), preoperative response assessment (n = 6) and posttherapeutic evaluation (n = 5). Imaging results of FDG-PET and CIM were analysed regarding the accuracy in tumour visualisation, impact on therapeutic management and preoperative response assessment, with clinical follow-up and histopathology as the standard of reference. RESULTS: FDG-PET and CIM showed concordant results for staging of primary WT, whereas FDG-PET was superior in 1/3 cases with recurrent WT. Concerning histological differentiation, one case with anaplastic WT had an standard uptake value (SUV) of 12.3, which was remarkably higher than the average SUV in the eight cases with intermediate risk histology. No parameter analysed for PET or CIM was reliably predictive for histological regression or clinical outcome. After completion of therapy, FDG-PET was superior to CIM in 2/5 cases in detecting residual disease with therapeutic relevance. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET does not provide additional information to the traditional imaging work-up for staging WT patients, preoperative response assessment and clinical outcome. FDG-PET was advantageous in ruling out residual disease after completion of first line treatment and in pretherapeutic staging of relapse patients. Furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation of initial SUV and histological differentiation.
Authors: Christopher Mitchell; Kathy Pritchard-Jones; Rosemary Shannon; Carolyn Hutton; Suzanne Stevens; David Machin; John Imeson; Anna Kelsey; Gordan M Vujanic; Peter Gornall; Jenny Walker; Roger Taylor; Pat Sartori; Juliet Hale; Gill Levitt; Boo Messahel; Helen Middleton; Richard Grundy; Jon Pritchard Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: A Weirich; I Leuschner; D Harms; G M Vujanic; J Tröger; U Abel; N Graf; D Schmidt; R Ludwig; P A Voûte Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Schulte; D Brecht-Krauss; B Heymer; A Guhlmann; E Hartwig; M R Sarkar; C G Diederichs; A Von Baer; J Kotzerke; S N Reske Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Weirich; R Ludwig; N Graf; U Abel; I Leuschner; G M Vujanic; O Mehls; J Boos; J Beck; B Royer-Pokora; P A Voûte Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: A K M Moinul Hossain; Barry L Shulkin; Michael J Gelfand; Humayun Bashir; Najat C Daw; Susan E Sharp; Helen R Nadel; Jeffrey S Dome Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Leo G Flores; Hsin-Hsien Yeh; Suren Soghomonyan; Daniel Young; James Bankson; Qianghua Hu; Mian Alauddin; Vicki Huff; Juri G Gelovani Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.488