PURPOSE: To evaluate whether PET/low-dose CT (ldCT) using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) improves characterization of indeterminate single pulmonary nodules (SPNs) in patients at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 307 patients who underwent FDG-PET/CT for indeterminate SPNs identified 93 (70 men, age range 46-90 years) at high risk of lung cancer (age >40 years, minimum 10 pack-year smokers). SPNs were evaluated for the presence and intensity of FDG avidity and ldCT patterns. The performance of visual and semiquantitative FDG-PET/ldCT algorithms for characterization of SPNs was compared to that of ldCT. Incongruent FDG-PET and ldCT patterns were analyzed for significance in further patient management. RESULTS: Malignancy was diagnosed in 38% patients. FDG avidity defined 33 SPNs as true-positive (TP) and 2 as false-negative (FN) (malignant), and 41 as true-negative (TN) and 17 as false-positive (FP) (benign). For SUVmax of 2.2 (by ROC analysis) there were 27 TP, 8 FN, 48 TN and 10 FP SPNs. LdCT defined 34 TP, 1 FN, 28 TN and 30 FP lesions. Of the FP lesions on ldCT, 60% were FDG-negative. Visual PET/ldCT analysis had a sensitivity of 94%, a specificity of 70%, an accuracy of 80%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 66%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95% as compared to 77%, 83%, 81%, 73%, 86% for semiquantitative PET/ldCT and 97%, 48%, 66%, 53%, 96% for ldCT, respectively. Both PET/ldCT algorithms had statistically significantly higher specificity and accuracy than ldCT. Semiquantitative analysis showed significantly higher PPV and lower sensitivity and NPV than found with ldCT. CONCLUSION: A single screening procedure encompassing FDG-PET and ldCT may improve screening for lung cancer in high-risk patients. The significantly improved specificity may potentially reduce FP ldCT results and further unnecessary invasive procedures.
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether PET/low-dose CT (ldCT) using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) improves characterization of indeterminate single pulmonary nodules (SPNs) in patients at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 307 patients who underwent FDG-PET/CT for indeterminate SPNs identified 93 (70 men, age range 46-90 years) at high risk of lung cancer (age >40 years, minimum 10 pack-year smokers). SPNs were evaluated for the presence and intensity of FDG avidity and ldCT patterns. The performance of visual and semiquantitative FDG-PET/ldCT algorithms for characterization of SPNs was compared to that of ldCT. Incongruent FDG-PET and ldCT patterns were analyzed for significance in further patient management. RESULTS:Malignancy was diagnosed in 38% patients. FDG avidity defined 33 SPNs as true-positive (TP) and 2 as false-negative (FN) (malignant), and 41 as true-negative (TN) and 17 as false-positive (FP) (benign). For SUVmax of 2.2 (by ROC analysis) there were 27 TP, 8 FN, 48 TN and 10 FP SPNs. LdCT defined 34 TP, 1 FN, 28 TN and 30 FP lesions. Of the FP lesions on ldCT, 60% were FDG-negative. Visual PET/ldCT analysis had a sensitivity of 94%, a specificity of 70%, an accuracy of 80%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 66%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95% as compared to 77%, 83%, 81%, 73%, 86% for semiquantitative PET/ldCT and 97%, 48%, 66%, 53%, 96% for ldCT, respectively. Both PET/ldCT algorithms had statistically significantly higher specificity and accuracy than ldCT. Semiquantitative analysis showed significantly higher PPV and lower sensitivity and NPV than found with ldCT. CONCLUSION: A single screening procedure encompassing FDG-PET and ldCT may improve screening for lung cancer in high-risk patients. The significantly improved specificity may potentially reduce FP ldCT results and further unnecessary invasive procedures.
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T Bury; A Dowlati; P Paulus; J L Corhay; T Benoit; J M Kayembe; R Limet; P Rigo; M Radermecker Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: C I Henschke; D I McCauley; D F Yankelevitz; D P Naidich; G McGuinness; O S Miettinen; D M Libby; M W Pasmantier; J Koizumi; N K Altorki; J P Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-07-10 Impact factor: 79.321
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: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Alicia Samuels; Asma Ghafoor; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Marco Spadafora; Leonardo Pace; Laura Evangelista; Luigi Mansi; Francesco Del Prete; Giorgio Saladini; Paolo Miletto; Stefano Fanti; Silvana Del Vecchio; Luca Guerra; Giovanna Pepe; Giuseppina Peluso; Emanuele Nicolai; Giovanni Storto; Marco Ferdeghini; Alessandro Giordano; Mohsen Farsad; Orazio Schillaci; Cesare Gridelli; Alberto Cuocolo Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Yun-Yan Ren; You-Cai Li; Hu-Bing Wu; Quan-Shi Wang; Yan-Jiang Han; Wen-Lan Zhou; Hong-Sheng Li; Zhen Wang; Mohammed Shah Alam Mohammed Shah Alam Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2017-03-20
Authors: Nicholas J Pastis; Travis J Greer; Nichole T Tanner; Amy E Wahlquist; Leonie L Gordon; Anand K Sharma; Nicholas C Koch; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: M Beth McCarville; Catherine Billups; Jianrong Wu; Robert Kaufman; Sue Kaste; Jamie Coleman; Susan Sharp; Helen Nadel; Martin Charron; Henrique Lederman; Steven Don; Stephen Shochat; Najat C Daw; Barry Shulkin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stephen A Deppen; Jeffrey D Blume; Clark D Kensinger; Ashley M Morgan; Melinda C Aldrich; Pierre P Massion; Ronald C Walker; Melissa L McPheeters; Joe B Putnam; Eric L Grogan Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael K Gould; Jessica Donington; William R Lynch; Peter J Mazzone; David E Midthun; David P Naidich; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Chest Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 9.410