Stine Bjørn Kristensen1, Søren Hess2, Henrik Petersen2, Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. stinebkristensen@gmail.com. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are relatively infrequent manifestations appearing before or after a cancer declares itself. Autoimmune mechanisms may be involved, but their cause and pathogenesis are often unknown. Due to disparity of symptoms, PNS remain a major diagnostic challenge. We examined the value of FDG-PET/CT for ruling in or out malignancy in a heterogeneous group of patients with suspected PNS. METHODS: We retrospectively extracted data from all patients referred 2009-2013 with suspected PNS. Data included age, sex, follow-up period, scan report, further diagnostic procedures, and final clinical diagnosis. Conclusions of the scan reports were compared to the final follow-up outcome as determined during an average follow-up of 31 months (range 6-51.5) in patients who were not diagnosed with cancer in immediate continuation of a positive PET/CT scan. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were included. Main causes for referral were neurological (n = 67), rheumatological (n = 25), dermatological (n = 18), nephrological (n = 6), haematological (n = 2), abnormal biochemistry (n = 11), and others (n = 8). The cancer prevalence was 8.8%. The FDG-PET/CT results were as follows: nine true positives, 22 false positives, 103 true negatives, and three false negatives. Corresponding diagnostic values were: sensitivity 75%, specificity 82%, accuracy 82%, and positive and negative predictive values of 29% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT has in patients with suspected PNS an impressively high negative predictive value and may be of value in ruling out PNS, the more so, the more the number of false positives can be minimized or used in differential diagnosis. We believe that FDG-PET/CT may become an important adjunct to the work-up and triage of patients with suspected PNS.
PURPOSE:Paraneoplastic syndromes (PNS) are relatively infrequent manifestations appearing before or after a cancer declares itself. Autoimmune mechanisms may be involved, but their cause and pathogenesis are often unknown. Due to disparity of symptoms, PNS remain a major diagnostic challenge. We examined the value of FDG-PET/CT for ruling in or out malignancy in a heterogeneous group of patients with suspected PNS. METHODS: We retrospectively extracted data from all patients referred 2009-2013 with suspected PNS. Data included age, sex, follow-up period, scan report, further diagnostic procedures, and final clinical diagnosis. Conclusions of the scan reports were compared to the final follow-up outcome as determined during an average follow-up of 31 months (range 6-51.5) in patients who were not diagnosed with cancer in immediate continuation of a positive PET/CT scan. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were included. Main causes for referral were neurological (n = 67), rheumatological (n = 25), dermatological (n = 18), nephrological (n = 6), haematological (n = 2), abnormal biochemistry (n = 11), and others (n = 8). The cancer prevalence was 8.8%. The FDG-PET/CT results were as follows: nine true positives, 22 false positives, 103 true negatives, and three false negatives. Corresponding diagnostic values were: sensitivity 75%, specificity 82%, accuracy 82%, and positive and negative predictive values of 29% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT has in patients with suspected PNS an impressively high negative predictive value and may be of value in ruling out PNS, the more so, the more the number of false positives can be minimized or used in differential diagnosis. We believe that FDG-PET/CT may become an important adjunct to the work-up and triage of patients with suspected PNS.
Authors: Albert Selva-O'Callaghan; Josep M Grau; Cristina Gámez-Cenzano; Antonio Vidaller-Palacín; Xavier Martínez-Gómez; Ernesto Trallero-Araguás; Eduard Andía-Navarro; Miquel Vilardell-Tarrés Journal: Am J Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: M J Titulaer; R Soffietti; J Dalmau; N E Gilhus; B Giometto; F Graus; W Grisold; J Honnorat; P A E Sillevis Smitt; R Tanasescu; C A Vedeler; R Voltz; J J G M Verschuuren Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: F Graus; J Y Delattre; J C Antoine; J Dalmau; B Giometto; W Grisold; J Honnorat; P Sillevis Smitt; Ch Vedeler; J J G M Verschuuren; A Vincent; R Voltz Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Rathan M Subramaniam; Anthony F Shields; Archana Sachedina; Lucy Hanna; Fenghai Duan; Barry A Siegel; Bruce E Hillner Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Ana María García Vicente; Roberto C Delgado-Bolton; Mariano Amo-Salas; Jesús López-Fidalgo; Ana Paula Caresia Aróztegui; José Ramón García Garzón; Javier Orcajo Rincón; María José García Velloso; María de Arcocha Torres; Soledad Alvárez Ruíz Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 9.236