PURPOSE: The aim of our prospective study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of early, delayed and dual-time-point positron emission tomography (PET) acquisition with contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) within a PET-CT examination in the evaluation of pulmonary solitary nodules (SPNs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients were enrolled in the study. All the patients underwent a dual-time-point PET-CT examination. Whole-body PET images were acquired at 50 min after fluorine18-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) administration (early), followed by a chest acquisition (delayed). Lung nodules with maximum standardised uptake value SUVmax > or =2.5 were considered malignant. SUVmax was calculated on early and delayed images; SUV increasing > or =10% (Delta SUVmax) was considered suggestive of malignancy. Absence of significant lung nodule enhancement (<15 Delta HU) at CT was considered strongly predictive of benignity. For the CT morphological assessment, the irregularity of the shape of each lesion was rated. PET-CT results were related to histological assays and clinical records. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by area under the receiveroperarting characteristic (ROC) curves analysis. RESULTS: Early and delayed SUVmax of malignant nodules were significantly higher than those of benign disease. Early SUVmax sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 77%, 91%, 79.5% and 66.7%; delayed SUVmax corresponding values were 77%, 66%, 74% and 66%; dual-time-point SUVmax values were 83%, 67%, 75% and 74%; DeltaHU values were 94%, 34%, 67%, 96%; CT morphologic evaluation values were 61%, 46%, 60%, 47%. Area under the curve (AUC) for early SUVmax was 0.79, for delayed SUVmax 0.80, for dual-time-point SUVmax 0.85, for DeltaHU 0.63 and for CT morphologic assessment 0.58. CONCLUSIONS: In our small series of patients, early and delayed SUVmax showed comparable accuracies, whereas morphological and contrast enhanced CT evaluations showed the lowest accuracies. Dual-time-point SUVmax showed the largest AUC. However, dual-time-point SUVmax was most sensitive, whereas single-time-point SUVmax was most specific.
PURPOSE: The aim of our prospective study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of early, delayed and dual-time-point positron emission tomography (PET) acquisition with contrast enhanced computed tomography (CT) within a PET-CT examination in the evaluation of pulmonary solitary nodules (SPNs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients were enrolled in the study. All the patients underwent a dual-time-point PET-CT examination. Whole-body PET images were acquired at 50 min after fluorine18-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) administration (early), followed by a chest acquisition (delayed). Lung nodules with maximum standardised uptake value SUVmax > or =2.5 were considered malignant. SUVmax was calculated on early and delayed images; SUV increasing > or =10% (Delta SUVmax) was considered suggestive of malignancy. Absence of significant lung nodule enhancement (<15 Delta HU) at CT was considered strongly predictive of benignity. For the CT morphological assessment, the irregularity of the shape of each lesion was rated. PET-CT results were related to histological assays and clinical records. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by area under the receiveroperarting characteristic (ROC) curves analysis. RESULTS: Early and delayed SUVmax of malignant nodules were significantly higher than those of benign disease. Early SUVmax sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 77%, 91%, 79.5% and 66.7%; delayed SUVmax corresponding values were 77%, 66%, 74% and 66%; dual-time-point SUVmax values were 83%, 67%, 75% and 74%; DeltaHU values were 94%, 34%, 67%, 96%; CT morphologic evaluation values were 61%, 46%, 60%, 47%. Area under the curve (AUC) for early SUVmax was 0.79, for delayed SUVmax 0.80, for dual-time-point SUVmax 0.85, for DeltaHU 0.63 and for CT morphologic assessment 0.58. CONCLUSIONS: In our small series of patients, early and delayed SUVmax showed comparable accuracies, whereas morphological and contrast enhanced CT evaluations showed the lowest accuracies. Dual-time-point SUVmax showed the largest AUC. However, dual-time-point SUVmax was most sensitive, whereas single-time-point SUVmax was most specific.
Authors: Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; Thomas E Hartman; David E Midthun; Jeff A Sloan; Anne-Marie Sykes; Gregory L Aughenbaugh; Medy A Clemens Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Angela van Baardwijk; Christophe Dooms; Robert Jan van Suylen; Erik Verbeken; Monique Hochstenbag; Cary Dehing-Oberije; Dennis Rupa; Silvia Pastorekova; Sigrid Stroobants; Ulrich Buell; Philippe Lambin; Johan Vansteenkiste; Dirk De Ruysscher Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Agostino Chiaravalloti; Roberta Danieli; Paolo Abbatiello; Barbara Di Pietro; Laura Travascio; Maria Cantonetti; Manlio Guazzaroni; Antonio Orlacchio; Giovanni Simonetti; Orazio Schillaci Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Fernando E Boada; Thomas Koesters; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Gang Cheng; Abass Alavi; Esther Lim; Thomas J Werner; Catherine V Del Bello; Scott R Akers Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.488
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: Douglas E Wood; Ella A Kazerooni; Scott L Baum; George A Eapen; David S Ettinger; Lifang Hou; David M Jackman; Donald Klippenstein; Rohit Kumar; Rudy P Lackner; Lorriana E Leard; Inga T Lennes; Ann N C Leung; Samir S Makani; Pierre P Massion; Peter Mazzone; Robert E Merritt; Bryan F Meyers; David E Midthun; Sudhakar Pipavath; Christie Pratt; Chakravarthy Reddy; Mary E Reid; Arnold J Rotter; Peter B Sachs; Matthew B Schabath; Mark L Schiebler; Betty C Tong; William D Travis; Benjamin Wei; Stephen C Yang; Kristina M Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.908