PURPOSE: To analyse different uptake patterns in (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT imaging and (18)F-FDG PET in paediatric neuroblastoma patients. METHODS: We compared 23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy scans and 23 (18)F-FDG PET scans (mean interval 10 days) in 19 patients with a suspected neuroblastic tumour (16 neuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroma and 1 opsomyoclonus syndrome). SPECT images of the abdomen or other tumour-affected regions were available in all patients. Indications for (18)F-FDG PET were a (123)I-MIBG-negative tumour, a discrepancy in (123)I-MIBG uptake compared to the morphological imaging or imaging results inconsistent with clinical findings. A lesion was found by (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and/or (18)F-FDG PET and/or morphological imaging. RESULTS: A total of 58 suspicious lesions (mean lesion diameter 3.8 cm) were evaluated and 18 were confirmed by histology and 40 by clinical follow-up. The sensitivities of (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET were 50% and 78% and the specificities were 75% and 92%, respectively. False-positive results (three (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, one (18)F-FDG PET) were due to physiological uptake or posttherapy changes. False-negative results (23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, 10 (18)F-FDG PET) were due to low uptake and small lesion size. Combined (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/(18)F-FDG PET imaging showed the highest sensitivity of 85%. In 34 lesions the (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and morphological imaging findings were discrepant. (18)F-FDG PET correctly identified 32 of the discrepant findings. Two bone/bone marrow metastases were missed by (18)F-FDG PET. CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET showed noticeable differences in their uptake patterns. (18)F-FDG PET was more sensitive and specific for the detection of neuroblastoma lesions. Our findings suggest that a (18)F-FDG PET scan may be useful in the event of discrepant or inconclusive findings on (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT and morphological imaging.
PURPOSE: To analyse different uptake patterns in (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT imaging and (18)F-FDG PET in paediatric neuroblastomapatients. METHODS: We compared 23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy scans and 23 (18)F-FDG PET scans (mean interval 10 days) in 19 patients with a suspected neuroblastic tumour (16 neuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroma and 1 opsomyoclonus syndrome). SPECT images of the abdomen or other tumour-affected regions were available in all patients. Indications for (18)F-FDG PET were a (123)I-MIBG-negative tumour, a discrepancy in (123)I-MIBG uptake compared to the morphological imaging or imaging results inconsistent with clinical findings. A lesion was found by (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and/or (18)F-FDG PET and/or morphological imaging. RESULTS: A total of 58 suspicious lesions (mean lesion diameter 3.8 cm) were evaluated and 18 were confirmed by histology and 40 by clinical follow-up. The sensitivities of (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET were 50% and 78% and the specificities were 75% and 92%, respectively. False-positive results (three (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, one (18)F-FDG PET) were due to physiological uptake or posttherapy changes. False-negative results (23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, 10 (18)F-FDG PET) were due to low uptake and small lesion size. Combined (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/(18)F-FDG PET imaging showed the highest sensitivity of 85%. In 34 lesions the (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and morphological imaging findings were discrepant. (18)F-FDG PET correctly identified 32 of the discrepant findings. Two bone/bone marrow metastases were missed by (18)F-FDG PET. CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET showed noticeable differences in their uptake patterns. (18)F-FDG PET was more sensitive and specific for the detection of neuroblastoma lesions. Our findings suggest that a (18)F-FDG PET scan may be useful in the event of discrepant or inconclusive findings on (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT and morphological imaging.
Authors: Walentyna Balwierz; Aleksandra Wieczorek; Tomasz Klekawka; Katarzyna Garus; Katarzyna Bolek-Marzec; Danuta Perek; Ewa Swieszkowska; Wojciech Młynarski; Małgorzata Stolarska; Jerzy R Kowalczyk; Joanna Nurzyńska-Flak; Anna Balcerska; Ewa Bień; Jacek Wachowiak; Danuta Januszkiewicz-Lewandowska; Wojciech Woźniak; Anna Raciborska; Alicja Chybicka; Marek Ussowicz; Maryna Krawczuk-Rybak; Katarzyna Muszyńska-Rosłan; Mariusz Wysocki; Sylwia Kołtan; Grazyna Sobol; Agnieszka Mizia-Malarz; Tomasz Urasiński; Jarosław Peregut-Pogorzelski; Danuta Sońta-Jakimczyk; Halina Bubała; Maria Wieczorek; Michał Matysiak; Barbara Sopyło; Wojciech Madziara Journal: Przegl Lek Date: 2010
Authors: S G DuBois; Y Kalika; J N Lukens; G M Brodeur; R C Seeger; J B Atkinson; G M Haase; C T Black; C Perez; H Shimada; R Gerbing; D O Stram; K K Matthay Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 1999 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: Malcolm A Smith; Nita L Seibel; Sean F Altekruse; Lynn A G Ries; Danielle L Melbert; Maura O'Leary; Franklin O Smith; Gregory H Reaman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K K Matthay; B Shulkin; R Ladenstein; J Michon; F Giammarile; V Lewington; A D J Pearson; S L Cohn Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: G M Brodeur; J Pritchard; F Berthold; N L Carlsen; V Castel; R P Castelberry; B De Bernardi; A E Evans; M Favrot; F Hedborg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas Pfluger; Christoph Schmied; Ute Porn; Gerda Leinsinger; Christian Vollmar; Stefan Dresel; Irene Schmid; Klaus Hahn Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Erin K Barr; Kathryn Laurie; Kristen Wroblewski; Mark A Applebaum; Susan L Cohn Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 3.167
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: Hanwen Zhang; Ruimin Huang; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Hongfen Guo; Pat B Zanzonico; Howard T Thaler; Jason S Lewis; Ronald G Blasberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 12.531