OBJECTIVES: A contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) scan is the first choice examination when evaluating patients with suspected lung cancer. However, while the clinical focus is on CT, research focus is on molecular biological methods whereby radiolabelled pharmaceuticals are injected into participants and target malignant lung tumours. We examined whether a contrast-enhanced MDCT scan supplied with an additional non-contrast enhanced high-resolution CT scan, or a newer but more expensive (99m)Tc depreotide single photon emission CT (SPECT) scan, was the better first-choice examination for the work-up of pulmonary lesions. Furthermore, we examined whether a (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT scan was an appropriate second-choice examination for patients with indeterminate lesions. METHODS: 140 participants were included in the analysis. CT images were given a malignancy potential rating of 1, 2 or 3 with higher rating being indicative of disease. (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT images were graded either positive or negative. Histopathology and CT follow-up were used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of CT were 97%, 30% and 84%, respectively. Overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT were 94%, 58% and 76%, respectively. For indeterminate lesions sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT were 71%, 68% and 69%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both CT and (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT made valuable contributions to the evaluation of pulmonary lesions. (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT results were not superior to CT results and did not contribute further to the diagnostic work-up. Regarding indeterminate lesions,( 99m)Tc depreotide SPECT sensitivity was too low.
OBJECTIVES: A contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) scan is the first choice examination when evaluating patients with suspected lung cancer. However, while the clinical focus is on CT, research focus is on molecular biological methods whereby radiolabelled pharmaceuticals are injected into participants and target malignant lung tumours. We examined whether a contrast-enhanced MDCT scan supplied with an additional non-contrast enhanced high-resolution CT scan, or a newer but more expensive (99m)Tc depreotide single photon emission CT (SPECT) scan, was the better first-choice examination for the work-up of pulmonary lesions. Furthermore, we examined whether a (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT scan was an appropriate second-choice examination for patients with indeterminate lesions. METHODS: 140 participants were included in the analysis. CT images were given a malignancy potential rating of 1, 2 or 3 with higher rating being indicative of disease. (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT images were graded either positive or negative. Histopathology and CT follow-up were used as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of CT were 97%, 30% and 84%, respectively. Overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT were 94%, 58% and 76%, respectively. For indeterminate lesions sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT were 71%, 68% and 69%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both CT and (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT made valuable contributions to the evaluation of pulmonary lesions. (99m)Tc depreotide SPECT results were not superior to CT results and did not contribute further to the diagnostic work-up. Regarding indeterminate lesions,( 99m)Tc depreotide SPECT sensitivity was too low.
Authors: E A Zerhouni; F P Stitik; S S Siegelman; D P Naidich; S S Sagel; A V Proto; J R Muhm; J W Walsh; C R Martinez; R T Heelan Journal: Radiology Date: 1986-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M D Seemann; A Staebler; T Beinert; H Dienemann; B Obst; M Matzko; C Pistitsch; M F Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 1999 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C I Henschke; D I McCauley; D F Yankelevitz; D P Naidich; G McGuinness; O S Miettinen; D M Libby; M W Pasmantier; J Koizumi; N K Altorki; J P Smith Journal: Lancet Date: 1999-07-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Claudia I Henschke; David F Yankelevitz; Rosna Mirtcheva; Georgeann McGuinness; Dorothy McCauley; Olli S Miettinen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stefan Walbom Harders; Hans Henrik Madsen; Karin Hjorthaug; Anne Kirstine Arveschoug; Torben Riis Rasmussen; Peter Meldgaard; Johanne Bach Andersen; Hans Kristian Pilegaard; Henrik Hager; Michael Rehling; Finn Rasmussen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 3.909