PURPOSE: Testicular tumour is the most common malignancy in young men. The diagnostic work-up is mainly based on morphological imaging. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with testicular tumour. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients studied by (18)F-FDG PET/CT at our centre. Inclusion criteria were: pathological confirmation of testicular tumour, contrast-enhanced CT scan performed within a month of the PET/CT scan, and clinical/imaging follow-up performed at the Oncology Unit of our hospital. Overall, 56 patients were enrolled and 121 PET/CT scans were evaluated. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed following standard procedures and the results were compared with clinical, imaging and follow-up data. Clinicians were contacted to inquire whether the PET/CT scan influenced the patient's management. Answers were scored as follows: start/continue chemotherapy or radiotherapy, indication for surgery of secondary lesions, and clinical surveillance. RESULTS: On a scan basis, 51 seminoma and 70 nonseminoma (NS) cases were reviewed. Of the 121 cases. 32 were found to be true-positive, 74 true-negative, 8 false-positive and 6 false-negative by PET/CT. PET/CT showed good sensitivity and specificity for seminoma lesion detection (92% and 84%, respectively), but its sensitivity was lower for NS forms (sensitivity and specificity 77% and 95%, respectively). The PET/CT scan influenced the clinical management of 47 of 51 seminomas (in 6 chemotherapy was started/continued, in 3 radiotherapy was started/continued, in 2 surgery of secondary lesions was performed, and in 36 clinical surveillance was considered appropriate), and 59 of 70 NS (in 18 therapy/surgery was started/continued, and in 41 clinical surveillance was considered appropriate). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data demonstrate the potential usefulness of PET/CT for the assessment of patients with testicular tumour. It provides valuable information for the clinical management, particularly for clinical surveillance, post-therapy assessment and when relapse is suspected.
PURPOSE:Testicular tumour is the most common malignancy in young men. The diagnostic work-up is mainly based on morphological imaging. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in patients with testicular tumour. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients studied by (18)F-FDG PET/CT at our centre. Inclusion criteria were: pathological confirmation of testicular tumour, contrast-enhanced CT scan performed within a month of the PET/CT scan, and clinical/imaging follow-up performed at the Oncology Unit of our hospital. Overall, 56 patients were enrolled and 121 PET/CT scans were evaluated. (18)F-FDG PET/CT was performed following standard procedures and the results were compared with clinical, imaging and follow-up data. Clinicians were contacted to inquire whether the PET/CT scan influenced the patient's management. Answers were scored as follows: start/continue chemotherapy or radiotherapy, indication for surgery of secondary lesions, and clinical surveillance. RESULTS: On a scan basis, 51 seminoma and 70 nonseminoma (NS) cases were reviewed. Of the 121 cases. 32 were found to be true-positive, 74 true-negative, 8 false-positive and 6 false-negative by PET/CT. PET/CT showed good sensitivity and specificity for seminoma lesion detection (92% and 84%, respectively), but its sensitivity was lower for NS forms (sensitivity and specificity 77% and 95%, respectively). The PET/CT scan influenced the clinical management of 47 of 51 seminomas (in 6 chemotherapy was started/continued, in 3 radiotherapy was started/continued, in 2 surgery of secondary lesions was performed, and in 36 clinical surveillance was considered appropriate), and 59 of 70 NS (in 18 therapy/surgery was started/continued, and in 41 clinical surveillance was considered appropriate). CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data demonstrate the potential usefulness of PET/CT for the assessment of patients with testicular tumour. It provides valuable information for the clinical management, particularly for clinical surveillance, post-therapy assessment and when relapse is suspected.
Authors: L Johns Putra; L Johns Putra; N Lawrentschuk; Z Ballok; A Hannah; A Poon; A Tauro; I D Davis; R J Hicks; D M Bolton; A M Scott Journal: Urology Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Alexander Becherer; Maria De Santis; Georgios Karanikas; Monica Szabó; Carsten Bokemeyer; Bernhard M Dohmen; Jörg Pont; Robert Dudczak; Christian Dittrich; Kurt Kletter Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: M de Wit; W Brenner; M Hartmann; J Kotzerke; D Hellwig; J Lehmann; C Franzius; S Kliesch; M Schlemmer; K Tatsch; R Heicappell; L Geworski; H Amthauer; B M Dohmen; H Schirrmeister; U Cremerius; C Bokemeyer; R Bares Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-05-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Susanne Krege; Jörg Beyer; Rainer Souchon; Peter Albers; Walter Albrecht; Ferran Algaba; Michael Bamberg; István Bodrogi; Carsten Bokemeyer; Eva Cavallin-Ståhl; Johannes Classen; Christoph Clemm; Gabriella Cohn-Cedermark; Stéphane Culine; Gedske Daugaard; Pieter H M De Mulder; Maria De Santis; Maike de Wit; Ronald de Wit; Hans Günter Derigs; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Annette Dieing; Jean-Pierre Droz; Martin Fenner; Karim Fizazi; Aude Flechon; Sophie D Fosså; Xavier Garcia del Muro; Thomas Gauler; Lajos Geczi; Arthur Gerl; Jose Ramon Germa-Lluch; Silke Gillessen; Jörg T Hartmann; Michael Hartmann; Axel Heidenreich; Wolfgang Hoeltl; Alan Horwich; Robert Huddart; Michael Jewett; Johnathan Joffe; William G Jones; László Kisbenedek; Olbjørn Klepp; Sabine Kliesch; Kai Uwe Koehrmann; Christian Kollmannsberger; Markus Kuczyk; Pilar Laguna; Oscar Leiva Galvis; Volker Loy; Malcolm D Mason; Graham M Mead; Rolf Mueller; Craig Nichols; Nicola Nicolai; Tim Oliver; Dalibor Ondrus; Gosse O N Oosterhof; Luis Paz Ares; Giorgio Pizzocaro; Jörg Pont; Tobias Pottek; Tom Powles; Oliver Rick; Giovanni Rosti; Roberto Salvioni; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Hans-Ulrich Schmelz; Heinz Schmidberger; Hans-Joachim Schmoll; Mark Schrader; Felix Sedlmayer; Niels E Skakkebaek; Aslam Sohaib; Sergei Tjulandin; Padraig Warde; Stefan Weinknecht; Lothar Weissbach; Christian Wittekind; Eva Winter; Lori Wood; Hans von der Maase Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-12-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: P Sharma; T K Jain; G K Parida; S Karunanithi; C Patel; A Sharma; S Thulkar; P K Julka; C Bal; R Kumar Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Gamal Anton Wakileh; Christian Ruf; Axel Heidenreich; Klaus-Peter Dieckmann; Catharina Lisson; Vikas Prasad; Christian Bolenz; Friedemann Zengerling Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ciara Conduit; Thuan Tzen Koh; Michael S Hofman; Guy C Toner; Jeremy Goad; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Keen-Hun Tai; Jeremy H Lewin; Ben Tran Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2022-10-08 Impact factor: 5.605