UNLABELLED: The aim of our study was to evaluate prospectively the diagnostic performance and prognostic significance of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in comparison with (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) imaging in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with refractory or relapsed high-risk neuroblastoma (16 male and 12 female patients; age range, 2-45 y; median age, 7.5 y) were simultaneously evaluated with (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (123)I-MIBG imaging before treatment with high-dose (131)I-MIBG. We compared the 2 methods in mapping tumor load, according to the extent of disease and intensity of positive lesions identified in each patient. Separate comparisons were performed for the soft-tissue and bone-bone marrow components of tumor burden. Survival analysis was performed to assess the prognostic significance of (18)F-FDG and (123)I-MIBG imaging parameters. RESULTS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT results were positive in 24 of 28 (86%) patients, whereas (123)I-MIBG imaging results were positive in all patients. (18)F-FDG was superior in mapping tumor load in 4 of 28 (14%) patients, whereas (123)I-MIBG was better in 12 of 28 (43%) patients. In the remaining 12 (43%) patients, no major differences were noted between the 2 modalities. (18)F-FDG PET/CT missed 5 cases of bone-bone marrow disease, 4 cases of soft-tissue disease, and 6 cases of skull involvement that were positive on (123)I-MIBG scans. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the group of patients (4/28) in whom (18)F-FDG was superior to (123)I-MIBG had a significantly lower survival rate than the others. Tumoral avidity for (18)F-FDG (maximum standardized uptake value) and extent of (18)F-FDG-avid bone-bone marrow disease were identified as adverse prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG imaging is superior to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of disease extent in high-risk neuroblastoma. However, (18)F-FDG PET/CT has significant prognostic implications in these patients.
UNLABELLED: The aim of our study was to evaluate prospectively the diagnostic performance and prognostic significance of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in comparison with (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) imaging in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with refractory or relapsed high-risk neuroblastoma (16 male and 12 female patients; age range, 2-45 y; median age, 7.5 y) were simultaneously evaluated with (18)F-FDG PET/CT and (123)I-MIBG imaging before treatment with high-dose (131)I-MIBG. We compared the 2 methods in mapping tumor load, according to the extent of disease and intensity of positive lesions identified in each patient. Separate comparisons were performed for the soft-tissue and bone-bone marrow components of tumor burden. Survival analysis was performed to assess the prognostic significance of (18)F-FDG and (123)I-MIBG imaging parameters. RESULTS: (18)F-FDG PET/CT results were positive in 24 of 28 (86%) patients, whereas (123)I-MIBG imaging results were positive in all patients. (18)F-FDG was superior in mapping tumor load in 4 of 28 (14%) patients, whereas (123)I-MIBG was better in 12 of 28 (43%) patients. In the remaining 12 (43%) patients, no major differences were noted between the 2 modalities. (18)F-FDG PET/CT missed 5 cases of bone-bone marrow disease, 4 cases of soft-tissue disease, and 6 cases of skull involvement that were positive on (123)I-MIBG scans. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed that the group of patients (4/28) in whom (18)F-FDG was superior to (123)I-MIBG had a significantly lower survival rate than the others. Tumoral avidity for (18)F-FDG (maximum standardized uptake value) and extent of (18)F-FDG-avid bone-bone marrow disease were identified as adverse prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG imaging is superior to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of disease extent in high-risk neuroblastoma. However, (18)F-FDG PET/CT has significant prognostic implications in these patients.
Authors: Zvi Bar-Sever; Lorenzo Biassoni; Barry Shulkin; Grace Kong; Michael S Hofman; Egesta Lopci; Irina Manea; Jacek Koziorowski; Rita Castellani; Ariane Boubaker; Bieke Lambert; Thomas Pfluger; Helen Nadel; Susan Sharp; Francesco Giammarile Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Julie R Park; Rochelle Bagatell; Susan L Cohn; Andrew D Pearson; Judith G Villablanca; Frank Berthold; Susan Burchill; Ariane Boubaker; Kieran McHugh; Jed G Nuchtern; Wendy B London; Nita L Seibel; O Wolf Lindwasser; John M Maris; Penelope Brock; Gudrun Schleiermacher; Ruth Ladenstein; Katherine K Matthay; Dominique Valteau-Couanet Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Seo Young Kang; Muhammad Kashif Rahim; Yong-Il Kim; Gi Jeong Cheon; Hyoung Jin Kang; Hee Young Shin; Keon Wook Kang; June-Key Chung; E Edmund Kim; Dong Soo Lee Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2016-10-06
Authors: Gitta Bleeker; Godelieve A M Tytgat; Judit A Adam; Huib N Caron; Leontien C M Kremer; Lotty Hooft; Elvira C van Dalen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-09-29