OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the increased diagnostic benefit of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) interpretation in evaluating solitary pulmonary nodules for malignancy. METHODS: One hundred seventeen patients (67 men and 50 women; mean age +/- SD, 61.7 +/- 13.6 years, range, 31-86 years) with indeterminate solitary pulmonary nodules and no previous history of malignancy were analyzed. PET/CT was performed with an integrated PET/CT scanner (Siemens Biograph BGO duo) 1 h after an intravenous injection of 370 MBq (10 mCi) (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose. Patients fasted for 6 h before imaging. PET was interpreted alone or combined with CT and was graded according to a five-point scale. A malignant diagnosis was based on histological findings or a clinical and radiological follow-up after at least 24 months. The diagnostic performances of PET alone and integrated PET/CT interpretation were evaluated using discriminant analysis. RESULTS: PET alone correctly classified 85% of nodules and integrated PET/CT interpretation increased the correct classification to 89%, with similar sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 89%, respectively. False-positive PET results mainly resulted from granulomatous disorders. Four (50%) of the eight cases deemed indeterminate on PET alone were resolved with combined PET/CT interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the benefit attributable to the CT component was limited when integrated PET/CT was used, PET and CT acted synergistically to significantly increase the diagnostic veracity for PET-indeterminate nodules.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the increased diagnostic benefit of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) interpretation in evaluating solitary pulmonary nodules for malignancy. METHODS: One hundred seventeen patients (67 men and 50 women; mean age +/- SD, 61.7 +/- 13.6 years, range, 31-86 years) with indeterminate solitary pulmonary nodules and no previous history of malignancy were analyzed. PET/CT was performed with an integrated PET/CT scanner (Siemens Biograph BGO duo) 1 h after an intravenous injection of 370 MBq (10 mCi) (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose. Patients fasted for 6 h before imaging. PET was interpreted alone or combined with CT and was graded according to a five-point scale. A malignant diagnosis was based on histological findings or a clinical and radiological follow-up after at least 24 months. The diagnostic performances of PET alone and integrated PET/CT interpretation were evaluated using discriminant analysis. RESULTS: PET alone correctly classified 85% of nodules and integrated PET/CT interpretation increased the correct classification to 89%, with similar sensitivity and specificity of 88% and 89%, respectively. False-positive PET results mainly resulted from granulomatous disorders. Four (50%) of the eight cases deemed indeterminate on PET alone were resolved with combined PET/CT interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the benefit attributable to the CT component was limited when integrated PET/CT was used, PET and CT acted synergistically to significantly increase the diagnostic veracity for PET-indeterminate nodules.
Authors: Sandra Pauls; Andreas K Buck; Gisela Halter; Felix M Mottaghy; Rainer Muche; Christina Bluemel; Susanne Gerstner; Stefan Krüger; Gerhard Glatting; Ludger Sunder-Plassmann; Peter Möller; Hans-Jürgen Brambs; Sven N Reske Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-01-16 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Ober van Gómez López; Ana María García Vicente; Antonio Francisco Honguero Martínez; Germán Andrés Jiménez Londoño; Carlos Hugo Vega Caicedo; Pablo León Atance; Ángel María Soriano Castrejón Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2015-06
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Helmut Prosch; Christian J Herold; Michael Weber; Georgios Karanikas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: M Dabrowska; R Krenke; P Korczynski; M Maskey-Warzechowska; M Zukowska; J Kunikowska; T Orłowski; R Chazan Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 1.889