PURPOSE: Fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has been approved for imaging in many malignancies but not for bladder cancer. This study investigated the value of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of patients with advanced bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2006 and February 2008, 57 patients with bladder cancer at our center underwent FDG-PET/CT after CT (n = 52) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; n = 5). The accuracy of FDG-PET/CT was assessed using both organ-based and patient-based analyses. FDG-PET/CT findings were validated by either biopsy or serial CT/MRI. Clinician questionnaires performed before and after FDG-PET/CT assessed whether those scan results affected management. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five individual lesions were evaluable in 47 patients for the organ-based analysis. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI, 76% to 94%) and 88% (95% CI, 78% to 95%), respectively. In the patient-based analysis, malignant disease was correctly diagnosed in 25 of 31 patients, resulting in a sensitivity of 81% (95% CI, 63% to 93%). FDG-PET/CT was negative in 15 of 16 patients without malignant lesions for a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 71% to 100%). Pre- and post-PET surveys revealed that FDG-PET/CT detected more malignant disease than conventional CT/MRI in 40% of patients. Post-PET surveys showed that clinicians changed their planned management in 68% of patients based on the FDG-PET/CT results. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT has excellent sensitivity and specificity in the detection of metastatic bladder cancer and provides additional diagnostic information that enhances clinical management more than CT/MRI alone. FDG-PET/CT scans may provide better accuracy in clinical information for directing therapy.
PURPOSE:Fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) has been approved for imaging in many malignancies but not for bladder cancer. This study investigated the value of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of patients with advanced bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between May 2006 and February 2008, 57 patients with bladder cancer at our center underwent FDG-PET/CT after CT (n = 52) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; n = 5). The accuracy of FDG-PET/CT was assessed using both organ-based and patient-based analyses. FDG-PET/CT findings were validated by either biopsy or serial CT/MRI. Clinician questionnaires performed before and after FDG-PET/CT assessed whether those scan results affected management. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five individual lesions were evaluable in 47 patients for the organ-based analysis. Overall sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI, 76% to 94%) and 88% (95% CI, 78% to 95%), respectively. In the patient-based analysis, malignant disease was correctly diagnosed in 25 of 31 patients, resulting in a sensitivity of 81% (95% CI, 63% to 93%). FDG-PET/CT was negative in 15 of 16 patients without malignant lesions for a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 71% to 100%). Pre- and post-PET surveys revealed that FDG-PET/CT detected more malignant disease than conventional CT/MRI in 40% of patients. Post-PET surveys showed that clinicians changed their planned management in 68% of patients based on the FDG-PET/CT results. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET/CT has excellent sensitivity and specificity in the detection of metastatic bladder cancer and provides additional diagnostic information that enhances clinical management more than CT/MRI alone. FDG-PET/CT scans may provide better accuracy in clinical information for directing therapy.
Authors: R Heicappell; V Müller-Mattheis; M Reinhardt; H Vosberg; C D Gerharz; H Müller-Gärtner; R Ackermann Journal: Eur Urol Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Barry A Siegel; Anthony F Shields; Dawei Liu; Ilana F Gareen; Ed Hunt; R Edward Coleman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Adam S Kibel; Farrokh Dehdashti; Matthew D Katz; Aleksandra P Klim; Robert L Grubb; Peter A Humphrey; Cary Siegel; Dengfeng Cao; Feng Gao; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria De Santis; Alexander Becherer; Carsten Bokemeyer; Franz Stoiber; Karin Oechsle; Franz Sellner; Alois Lang; Kurt Kletter; Bernhard M Dohmen; Christian Dittrich; Jörg Pont Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498