OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for lymph node staging in patients with bladder cancer before radical cystectomy and to compare it with that of computed tomography. METHODS: A total of 52 patients operated on between 2005 and 2010 were prospectively included in this prospective, mono-institutional, open, non-randomized pilot study. Patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy were excluded. (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in addition to computed tomography was carried out for lymph node staging of bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. Lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy was carried out. Findings from (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography and computed tomography were compared with the results of definitive histological examination of the lymph node dissection. The diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities was assessed and compared. RESULTS: The mean number of lymph nodes removed during lymph node dissection was 16.5 ± 10.9. Lymph node metastasis was confirmed on histological examination in 22 cases (42.3%). This had been suspected in five cases (9.6%) on computed tomography and in 12 cases (23.1%) on (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, relative risk and accuracy were 9.1%, 90%, 40%, 57.4%, 0.91 and 55.7%, respectively, for computed tomography, and 36.4%, 86.7%, 66.7%, 65%, 2.72, 65.4%, respectively, for (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography. CONCLUSIONS: (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography is more reliable than computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in patients with invasive bladder carcinoma undergoing radical cystectomy.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for lymph node staging in patients with bladder cancer before radical cystectomy and to compare it with that of computed tomography. METHODS: A total of 52 patients operated on between 2005 and 2010 were prospectively included in this prospective, mono-institutional, open, non-randomized pilot study. Patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy were excluded. (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in addition to computed tomography was carried out for lymph node staging of bladder cancer before radical cystectomy. Lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy was carried out. Findings from (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography and computed tomography were compared with the results of definitive histological examination of the lymph node dissection. The diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities was assessed and compared. RESULTS: The mean number of lymph nodes removed during lymph node dissection was 16.5 ± 10.9. Lymph node metastasis was confirmed on histological examination in 22 cases (42.3%). This had been suspected in five cases (9.6%) on computed tomography and in 12 cases (23.1%) on (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, relative risk and accuracy were 9.1%, 90%, 40%, 57.4%, 0.91 and 55.7%, respectively, for computed tomography, and 36.4%, 86.7%, 66.7%, 65%, 2.72, 65.4%, respectively, for (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography. CONCLUSIONS: (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography is more reliable than computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in patients with invasive bladder carcinoma undergoing radical cystectomy.
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
Authors: Avinash Maganty; Robert M Turner; Jonathan G Yabes; Dwight E Heron; Jeffrey R Gingrich; Benjamin J Davies; Bruce L Jacobs Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Ayman Soubra; Daniel Hayward; Philipp Dahm; Robert Goldfarb; Jerry Froehlich; Gautam Jha; Badrinath R Konety Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Michał Frączek; Hubert Kamecki; Anna Kamecka; Roman Sosnowski; Katarzyna Sklinda; Marcin Czarniecki; Leszek Królicki; Jerzy Walecki Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2018-10