PURPOSE: Despite recent advances in clinical imaging modalities, differentiation of pancreatic masses remains difficult. Here, we tested the diagnostic accuracy of molecular-based imaging including 3'-deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET) and [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in patients with suspected pancreatic masses scheduled to undergo surgery. METHODS: A total of 46 patients with pancreatic tumours suspicious for malignancy and scheduled for resective surgery were recruited prospectively. In 41 patients, FLT PET and FDG PET/CT scans were performed. A diagnostic CT performed on a routine basis was available in 31 patients. FLT PET and FDG PET/CT emission images were acquired according to standard protocols. Tracer uptake in the tumour [FDG and FLT standardized uptake value (SUV)] was quantified by the region of interest (ROI) technique. For FDG PET/CT analysis, correct ROI placement was ensured via side-by-side reading of corresponding CT images. RESULTS: Of 41 patients, 33 had malignancy, whereas 8 patients had benign disease. Visual analysis of FDG and FLT PET resulted in sensitivity values of 91% (30/33) and 70% (23/33), respectively. Corresponding specificities were 50% (4/8) for FDG PET and 75% (6/8) for FLT PET. In the subgroup of patients with contrast-enhanced CT (n = 31), sensitivities were 96% (PET/CT), 88% (CT alone), 92% (FDG PET) and 72% (FLT PET), respectively. Mean FLT uptake in all malignant tumours was 3.0 (range SUV(max) 1.1-6.5; mean FDG SUV(max) 7.9, range 3.3-17.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For differentiation of pancreatic tumours, FDG PET and FDG PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than FLT PET. Interestingly, visual analysis of FLT PET led to two false-positive findings by misinterpreting physiological bowel uptake as pathological FLT uptake in the pancreas. Due to the limited number of patients, the clinical value of adding FLT PET to the diagnostic workup of pancreatic tumours remains to be determined.
PURPOSE: Despite recent advances in clinical imaging modalities, differentiation of pancreatic masses remains difficult. Here, we tested the diagnostic accuracy of molecular-based imaging including 3'-deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET) and [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in patients with suspected pancreatic masses scheduled to undergo surgery. METHODS: A total of 46 patients with pancreatic tumours suspicious for malignancy and scheduled for resective surgery were recruited prospectively. In 41 patients, FLT PET and FDG PET/CT scans were performed. A diagnostic CT performed on a routine basis was available in 31 patients. FLT PET and FDG PET/CT emission images were acquired according to standard protocols. Tracer uptake in the tumour [FDG and FLT standardized uptake value (SUV)] was quantified by the region of interest (ROI) technique. For FDG PET/CT analysis, correct ROI placement was ensured via side-by-side reading of corresponding CT images. RESULTS: Of 41 patients, 33 had malignancy, whereas 8 patients had benign disease. Visual analysis of FDG and FLT PET resulted in sensitivity values of 91% (30/33) and 70% (23/33), respectively. Corresponding specificities were 50% (4/8) for FDG PET and 75% (6/8) for FLT PET. In the subgroup of patients with contrast-enhanced CT (n = 31), sensitivities were 96% (PET/CT), 88% (CT alone), 92% (FDG PET) and 72% (FLT PET), respectively. Mean FLT uptake in all malignant tumours was 3.0 (range SUV(max) 1.1-6.5; mean FDG SUV(max) 7.9, range 3.3-17.8; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: For differentiation of pancreatic tumours, FDG PET and FDG PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than FLT PET. Interestingly, visual analysis of FLT PET led to two false-positive findings by misinterpreting physiological bowel uptake as pathological FLT uptake in the pancreas. Due to the limited number of patients, the clinical value of adding FLT PET to the diagnostic workup of pancreatic tumours remains to be determined.
Authors: Andreas K Buck; Martin Hetzel; Holger Schirrmeister; Gisela Halter; Peter Möller; Clemens Kratochwil; Andreas Wahl; Gerhard Glatting; Felix M Mottaghy; Torsten Mattfeldt; Bernd Neumaier; Sven N Reske Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-12-14 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Stefan Heinrich; Gerhard W Goerres; Markus Schäfer; Markus Sagmeister; Peter Bauerfeind; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Thomas F Hany; Gustav K von Schulthess; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: A C Buck; H H Schirrmeister; C A Guhlmann; C G Diederichs; C Shen; I Buchmann; J Kotzerke; D Birk; T Mattfeldt; S N Reske Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ken Herrmann; Florian Eckel; Stefan Schmidt; Klemens Scheidhauer; Bernd Joachim Krause; Joerg Kleeff; Tibor Schuster; Hans-Juergen Wester; Helmut Friess; Roland M Schmid; Markus Schwaiger; Andreas K Buck Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Quon; S T Chang; F Chin; A Kamaya; D W Dick; B W Loo; S S Gambhir; A C Koong Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Zhoulei Li; Ken Herrmann; Sabine Pirsig; Kathrin Philipp-Abbrederis; Martin Henninger; Michaela Aichler; Annette Feuchtinger; Axel Walch; Ambros J Beer; Ingo Ringshausen; Kelsey L Pomykala; Klemens Scheidhauer; Markus Schwaiger; Ulrich Keller; Andreas K Buck Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2013-12-15
Authors: Mert Erkan; Simone Hausmann; Christoph W Michalski; Alexander A Fingerle; Martin Dobritz; Jörg Kleeff; Helmut Friess Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17
Authors: Amarnath Challapalli; Tara Barwick; Rachel A Pearson; Shairoz Merchant; Francesco Mauri; Elizabeth C Howell; Katherine Sumpter; Ross J Maxwell; Eric O Aboagye; Rohini Sharma Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 9.236