BACKGROUND: The role of PET in the diagnosis of paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNS) has previously been reported in retrospective studies, from specialized neuro-oncology units, often selecting patients with positive paraneoplastic antibodies. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the usefulness of PET in detecting malignancy in patients clinically suspected of having PNS. METHODS: PET was performed in patients suspected of PNS within 4 weeks of the normal CT body scan. All patients were followed up. RESULTS: Eighty patients suspected of having PNS underwent PET. 18/80 (23%) were abnormal and suspicious of malignancy. The total number of definite and probable PNS with abnormal PET was 11/18 (61%). The total number of definite and probable PNS with a normal PET was 3/62 (5%). Only 50% of patients with biopsy-proven malignancy were positive for paraneoplastic antibodies. The prevalence of abnormal PET in patients presenting with classical PNS was 41% as opposed to 21% in patients with non-classical PNS. The sensitivity and specificity of PET in diagnosing PNS was 75% and 87% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET is a valuable tool in clinically suspected PNS. Its use should not be restricted to specialized neuro-oncology units or in patients with positive paraneoplastic antibodies. Positive yield is the highest amongst patients with classical PNS.
BACKGROUND: The role of PET in the diagnosis of paraneoplastic neurological syndromes (PNS) has previously been reported in retrospective studies, from specialized neuro-oncology units, often selecting patients with positive paraneoplastic antibodies. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess the usefulness of PET in detecting malignancy in patients clinically suspected of having PNS. METHODS: PET was performed in patients suspected of PNS within 4 weeks of the normal CT body scan. All patients were followed up. RESULTS: Eighty patients suspected of having PNS underwent PET. 18/80 (23%) were abnormal and suspicious of malignancy. The total number of definite and probable PNS with abnormal PET was 11/18 (61%). The total number of definite and probable PNS with a normal PET was 3/62 (5%). Only 50% of patients with biopsy-proven malignancy were positive for paraneoplastic antibodies. The prevalence of abnormal PET in patients presenting with classical PNS was 41% as opposed to 21% in patients with non-classical PNS. The sensitivity and specificity of PET in diagnosing PNS was 75% and 87% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PET is a valuable tool in clinically suspected PNS. Its use should not be restricted to specialized neuro-oncology units or in patients with positive paraneoplastic antibodies. Positive yield is the highest amongst patients with classical PNS.
Authors: Leonardo Baldarçara; Stuart Currie; M Hadjivassiliou; Nigel Hoggard; Allison Jack; Andrea P Jackowski; Mario Mascalchi; Cecilia Parazzini; Kathrin Reetz; Andrea Righini; Jörg B Schulz; Alessandra Vella; Sara Jane Webb; Christophe Habas Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Rathan M Subramaniam; Anthony F Shields; Archana Sachedina; Lucy Hanna; Fenghai Duan; Barry A Siegel; Bruce E Hillner Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Mariano Amo-Salas; Jesús López-Fidalgo; Ana Paula Caresia Aróztegui; José Ramón García Garzón; Javier Orcajo Rincón; María José García Velloso; María de Arcocha Torres; Soledad Alvárez Ruíz Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M J Titulaer; R Soffietti; J Dalmau; N E Gilhus; B Giometto; F Graus; W Grisold; J Honnorat; P A E Sillevis Smitt; R Tanasescu; C A Vedeler; R Voltz; J J G M Verschuuren Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: F J Pena Pardo; A M García Vicente; M Amo-Salas; J F López-Fidalgo; J A Garrido Robles; J Á de Ayala Fernández; P Del Saz Saucedo; M Muñoz Pasadas; A Soriano Castrejón Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: N Schramm; A Rominger; C Schmidt; J N Morelli; C Schmid-Tannwald; F G Meinel; M F Reiser; C Rist Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 9.236