OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to clarify the difference of F-18 FDG uptake kinetics between FDG-avid non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and benign lesions associated with various etiologies on dual-time point PET/CT scan, and to determine the optimal parameter for differentiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The materials were 76 FDG-avid solitary NSCLC in 76 patients and 57 FDG-avid solitary benign lesions associated with various etiologies in 61 patients. FDG PET/CT scan was performed at 60 and 120 min after intravenous injection of 4.4 MBq/kg F-18 FDG. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on early and delayed scans and the percent change of SUVmax (%DeltaSUVmax) between the two time points were measured. The optimal differential parameter was determined by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD of early SUV max, delayed SUVmax and %DeltaSUVmax were 8.3 +/- 5.2, and 10.2 +/- 6.5, and 21.9% +/- 18.9 in FDG-avid NSCLC, and 3.8 +/- 3.2, 4.0 +/- 3.7, and 11.3% +/- 26.0 in FDG-avid benign lesions, respectively. Delayed SUVmax in NSCLC was significantly higher than early SUVmax (P < 0.0001); while not different in benign lesions. Percent change of SUVmax in NSCLC was also significantly higher than that in benign lesions (P < 0.01). The optimal parameter for the differentiation was delayed SUVmax > 5.5 and yielded sensitivity of 77.6%, specificity of 80.7% and accuracy of 78.9%, which provided better differentiation than the use of %DeltaSUVmax or the traditional parameter of early SUVmax > 2.5. However, 11 (19.2%) benign lesions were indistinguishable from NSCLC. CONCLUSION: Although delayed PET/CT scan enhances the difference of FDG uptake between FDG-avid NSCLC and benign lesions, and the use of delayed SUVmax > 5.5 appears to improve the differentiation of these hypermetabolic lesions compared with an early scan, careful interpretation and management for correct differentiation are still required.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to clarify the difference of F-18 FDG uptake kinetics between FDG-avid non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and benign lesions associated with various etiologies on dual-time point PET/CT scan, and to determine the optimal parameter for differentiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The materials were 76 FDG-avid solitary NSCLC in 76 patients and 57 FDG-avid solitary benign lesions associated with various etiologies in 61 patients. FDG PET/CT scan was performed at 60 and 120 min after intravenous injection of 4.4 MBq/kg F-18 FDG. The maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) on early and delayed scans and the percent change of SUVmax (%DeltaSUVmax) between the two time points were measured. The optimal differential parameter was determined by receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD of early SUV max, delayed SUVmax and %DeltaSUVmax were 8.3 +/- 5.2, and 10.2 +/- 6.5, and 21.9% +/- 18.9 in FDG-avid NSCLC, and 3.8 +/- 3.2, 4.0 +/- 3.7, and 11.3% +/- 26.0 in FDG-avid benign lesions, respectively. Delayed SUVmax in NSCLC was significantly higher than early SUVmax (P < 0.0001); while not different in benign lesions. Percent change of SUVmax in NSCLC was also significantly higher than that in benign lesions (P < 0.01). The optimal parameter for the differentiation was delayed SUVmax > 5.5 and yielded sensitivity of 77.6%, specificity of 80.7% and accuracy of 78.9%, which provided better differentiation than the use of %DeltaSUVmax or the traditional parameter of early SUVmax > 2.5. However, 11 (19.2%) benign lesions were indistinguishable from NSCLC. CONCLUSION: Although delayed PET/CT scan enhances the difference of FDG uptake between FDG-avid NSCLC and benign lesions, and the use of delayed SUVmax > 5.5 appears to improve the differentiation of these hypermetabolic lesions compared with an early scan, careful interpretation and management for correct differentiation are still required.
Authors: Qing Ye; Jing Wu; Yihuan Lu; Mika Naganawa; Jean-Dominique Gallezot; Tianyu Ma; Yaqiang Liu; Lynn Tanoue; Frank Detterbeck; Justin Blasberg; Ming-Kai Chen; Michael Casey; Richard E Carson; Chi Liu Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Carryn M Anderson; Tangel Chang; Michael M Graham; Michael D Marquardt; Anna Button; Brian J Smith; Yusuf Menda; Wenqing Sun; Nitin A Pagedar; John M Buatti Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-01-30 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Nis Pedersen Jørgensen; Aage K O Alstrup; Frank V Mortensen; Karoline Knudsen; Steen Jakobsen; Line Bille Madsen; Dirk Bender; Peter Breining; Mikkel Steen Petersen; Mariane Høgsberg Schleimann; Frederik Dagnæs-Hansen; Lars C Gormsen; Per Borghammer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Salvatore Cappabianca; Annamaria Porto; Mario Petrillo; Barbara Greco; Alfonso Reginelli; Francesco Ronza; Francesca Setola; Giovanni Rossi; Andrea Di Matteo; Roberto Muto; Maria Luisa De Rimini; Sergio Piccolo; Mara Catalano; Pietro Muto; Nicoletta De Rosa; Enrica Barra; Ilaria De Rosa; Francesca Antinolfi; Giuseppe Antinolfi; Mario Caputi; Luca Brunese; Roberto Grassi; Antonio Rotondo Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Erwin M Wiegman; Jan Pruim; Jan F Ubbels; Harry J M Groen; Johannes A Langendijk; Joachim Widder Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Douglas A Murrey; Sabrina M Smith; Edward W Martin; Nathan C Hall Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 4.430