OBJECTIVE: Positron emission tomography (PET) using (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D -glucose (FDG) has a limitation in detecting cerebral metastases; however, the feasibility of detection by inline PET/computed tomography (CT) system remains unknown. We evaluated the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT of body imaging protocol for the detection of cerebral metastases when compared with PET alone and CT alone. METHODS: Fifty patients underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT scanning including the brain and contrast enhanced brain MR (magnetic resonance) scan. PET-only, CT-only, and the fused images were interpreted, and the confidence of presence of cerebral metastases was recorded using a five-point grading scale. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) was calculated. Differences among the three modalities were tested with the Cochran-Q test, followed by multiple comparisons using the McNemar test with Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging revealed 70 cerebral metastatic lesions in 20 patients. Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Az of PET-alone interpretation were 45%, 80%, 66%, and 0.6025, respectively, those of CT-alone interpretation were 50%, 97%, 78%, and 0.7158, respectively, and those of fused-image interpretation were 50%, 93%, 76%, and 0.7242, respectively. ROC analysis revealed significant differences among the three interpretation methods (P = 0.0238) and between PET and PET/CT (P = 0.0129). The sensitivity of PET, CT, and fused-image interpretation for detecting 70 lesions was 13%, 20%, and 20%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even with an integrated PET/CT scanner of body imaging protocol, the sensitivity of cerebral metastases remained unsatisfactory. To assess intracranial lesions, MR scanning should still be considered.
OBJECTIVE: Positron emission tomography (PET) using (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D -glucose (FDG) has a limitation in detecting cerebral metastases; however, the feasibility of detection by inline PET/computed tomography (CT) system remains unknown. We evaluated the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT of body imaging protocol for the detection of cerebral metastases when compared with PET alone and CT alone. METHODS: Fifty patients underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT scanning including the brain and contrast enhanced brain MR (magnetic resonance) scan. PET-only, CT-only, and the fused images were interpreted, and the confidence of presence of cerebral metastases was recorded using a five-point grading scale. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) was calculated. Differences among the three modalities were tested with the Cochran-Q test, followed by multiple comparisons using the McNemar test with Bonferroni adjustment. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging revealed 70 cerebral metastatic lesions in 20 patients. Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Az of PET-alone interpretation were 45%, 80%, 66%, and 0.6025, respectively, those of CT-alone interpretation were 50%, 97%, 78%, and 0.7158, respectively, and those of fused-image interpretation were 50%, 93%, 76%, and 0.7242, respectively. ROC analysis revealed significant differences among the three interpretation methods (P = 0.0238) and between PET and PET/CT (P = 0.0129). The sensitivity of PET, CT, and fused-image interpretation for detecting 70 lesions was 13%, 20%, and 20%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even with an integrated PET/CT scanner of body imaging protocol, the sensitivity of cerebral metastases remained unsatisfactory. To assess intracranial lesions, MR scanning should still be considered.
Authors: Jinyu Chen; Ho-Jeong Lee; Xuefeng Wu; Lei Huo; Sun-Jin Kim; Lei Xu; Yan Wang; Junqing He; Lakshmi R Bollu; Guang Gao; Fei Su; James Briggs; Xiaojing Liu; Tamar Melman; John M Asara; Isaiah J Fidler; Lewis C Cantley; Jason W Locasale; Zhang Weihua Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Amy N Melsaether; Roy A Raad; Akshat C Pujara; Fabio D Ponzo; Kristine M Pysarenko; Komal Jhaveri; James S Babb; Eric E Sigmund; Sungheon G Kim; Linda A Moy Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert R Flavell; Charles Truillet; Melanie K Regan; Tanushree Ganguly; Joseph E Blecha; John Kurhanewicz; Henry F VanBrocklin; Kayvan R Keshari; Christopher J Chang; Michael J Evans; David M Wilson Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 4.774
Authors: Usman Bashir; Andrew Mallia; James Stirling; John Joemon; Jane MacKewn; Geoff Charles-Edwards; Vicky Goh; Gary J Cook Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2015-07-21
Authors: Bekir Tasdemir; Zeki Dostbil; Ali Inal; Kemal Unal; Sule Yildirim; F Selcuk Simsek Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 3.411