PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential utility of (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanine ((123)I-MIBG) scintigraphy and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for the detection of primary and metastatic lesions in pediatric neuroblastoma (NBL) patients, and to determine whether (18)F-FDG PET is as beneficial as (123)I-MIBG imaging. METHODS: We selected 8 NBL patients with significant residual mass after operation and who had paired (123)I-MIBG and (18)F-FDG PET images that were obtained during the follow-up. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts and the findings of 45 paired scans. RESULTS: Both scans correlated relatively well with the disease status as determined by standard imaging modalities during follow-up; the overall concordance rates were 32/45 (71.1%) for primary tumor sites and 33/45 (73.3%) for bone-bone marrow (BM) metastatic sites. In detecting primary tumor sites, (123)I-MIBG might be superior to (18)F-FDG PET. The sensitivity of (123)I-MIBG and (18)F-FDG PET were 96.7% and 70.9%, respectively, and their specificity were 85.7% and 92.8%, respectively. (18)F-FDG PET failed to detect 9 true NBL lesions in 45 follow-up scans (false negative rate, 29%) with positive (123)I-MIBG. For bone-BM metastatic sites, the sensitivity of (123)I-MIBG and (18)F-FDG PET were 72.7% and 81.8%, respectively, and the specificity were 79.1% and 100%, respectively. (123)I-MIBG scan showed higher false positivity (20.8%) than (18)F-FDG PET (0%). CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG is superior for delineating primary tumor sites, and (18)F-FDG PET could aid in discriminating inconclusive findings on bony metastatic NBL. Both scans can be complementarily used to clearly determine discrepancies or inconclusive findings on primary or bone-BM metastatic NBL during follow-up.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential utility of (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanine ((123)I-MIBG) scintigraphy and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for the detection of primary and metastatic lesions in pediatric neuroblastoma (NBL) patients, and to determine whether (18)F-FDG PET is as beneficial as (123)I-MIBG imaging. METHODS: We selected 8 NBL patients with significant residual mass after operation and who had paired (123)I-MIBG and (18)F-FDG PET images that were obtained during the follow-up. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical charts and the findings of 45 paired scans. RESULTS: Both scans correlated relatively well with the disease status as determined by standard imaging modalities during follow-up; the overall concordance rates were 32/45 (71.1%) for primary tumor sites and 33/45 (73.3%) for bone-bone marrow (BM) metastatic sites. In detecting primary tumor sites, (123)I-MIBG might be superior to (18)F-FDG PET. The sensitivity of (123)I-MIBG and (18)F-FDG PET were 96.7% and 70.9%, respectively, and their specificity were 85.7% and 92.8%, respectively. (18)F-FDG PET failed to detect 9 true NBL lesions in 45 follow-up scans (false negative rate, 29%) with positive (123)I-MIBG. For bone-BM metastatic sites, the sensitivity of (123)I-MIBG and (18)F-FDG PET were 72.7% and 81.8%, respectively, and the specificity were 79.1% and 100%, respectively. (123)I-MIBG scan showed higher false positivity (20.8%) than (18)F-FDG PET (0%). CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG is superior for delineating primary tumor sites, and (18)F-FDG PET could aid in discriminating inconclusive findings on bony metastatic NBL. Both scans can be complementarily used to clearly determine discrepancies or inconclusive findings on primary or bone-BM metastatic NBL during follow-up.
Authors: Henriette Ingrid Melzer; Eva Coppenrath; Irene Schmid; Michael H Albert; Dietrich von Schweinitz; Coral Tudball; Peter Bartenstein; Thomas Pfluger Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Nikolaos D Papathanasiou; Mark N Gaze; Kevin Sullivan; Matthew Aldridge; Wendy Waddington; Ahmad Almuhaideb; Jamshed B Bomanji Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 10.057
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