Tine Nøhr Christensen1,2, Seppo W Langer3, Gitte Persson4,5, Klaus Richter Larsen6, Annika Loft7, Annemarie Gjelstrup Amtoft7, Anne Kiil Berthelsen7, Helle Hjorth Johannesen7, Sune Høgild Keller7, Andreas Kjaer7,2, Barbara Malene Fischer7,5,8. 1. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine, and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark tine.noehr.christensen.02@regionh.dk. 2. Cluster for Molecular Imaging, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Oncology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; and. 7. Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine, and PET, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8. PET Centre, School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Science, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Diagnosing relapse after radiotherapy for lung cancer is challenging. The specificity of both CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT is low because of radiation-induced changes. 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT) PET has previously demonstrated higher specificity for malignancy than 18F-FDG PET. We investigated the value of 18F-FLT PET/CT for diagnosing relapse in irradiated lung cancer. Methods: Patients suspected of relapse of lung cancer after definitive radiotherapy (conventional fractionated radiotherapy [cRT] or stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) were included. Sensitivity and specificity were analyzed both within the irradiated high-dose volume (HDV) and on a patient basis. Marginal differences and interobserver agreement were assessed. Results: Sixty-three patients who had received radiotherapy in 70 HDVs (34 cRT; 36 SBRT) were included. The specificity of 18F-FLT PET/CT was higher than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT (HDV, 96% [95% CI, 87-100] vs. 71% [95% CI, 57-83] [P = 0.0039]; patient-based, 90% [95% CI, 73-98] vs. 55% [95% CI, 36-74] [P = 0.0020]). The difference in specificity between 18F-FLT PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT was higher after cRT than after SBRT. The sensitivity of 18F-FLT PET/CT was lower than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT (HDV, 69% [95% CI, 41-89] vs. 94% [95% CI, 70-100] [P = 0.1250]; patient-based, 70% [95% CI, 51-84] vs. 94% [95% CI, 80-99] [P = 0.0078]). Adding 18F-FLT PET/CT when 18F-FDG PET/CT was positive or inconclusive improved the diagnostic value compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT alone. In cRT HDVs, the probability of malignancy increased from 67% for 18F-FDG PET/CT alone to 100% when both tracers were positive. Conclusion: 18F-FLT PET/CT adds diagnostic value to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected relapse. The diagnostic impact of 18F-FLT PET/CT was highest after cRT. We suggest adding 18F-FLT PET/CT when 18F-FDG PET/CT is inconclusive or positive within the previously irradiated volume to improve diagnostic value in patients for whom histologic confirmation is not easily obtained.
Diagnosing relapse after radiotherapy for lung cancer is challenging. The specificity of both CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT is low because of radiation-induced changes. 3'-deoxy-3'-18F-fluorothymidine (18F-FLT) PET has previously demonstrated higher specificity for malignancy than 18F-FDG PET. We investigated the value of 18F-FLT PET/CT for diagnosing relapse in irradiated lung cancer. Methods: Patients suspected of relapse of lung cancer after definitive radiotherapy (conventional fractionated radiotherapy [cRT] or stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) were included. Sensitivity and specificity were analyzed both within the irradiated high-dose volume (HDV) and on a patient basis. Marginal differences and interobserver agreement were assessed. Results: Sixty-three patients who had received radiotherapy in 70 HDVs (34 cRT; 36 SBRT) were included. The specificity of 18F-FLT PET/CT was higher than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT (HDV, 96% [95% CI, 87-100] vs. 71% [95% CI, 57-83] [P = 0.0039]; patient-based, 90% [95% CI, 73-98] vs. 55% [95% CI, 36-74] [P = 0.0020]). The difference in specificity between 18F-FLT PET/CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT was higher after cRT than after SBRT. The sensitivity of 18F-FLT PET/CT was lower than that of 18F-FDG PET/CT (HDV, 69% [95% CI, 41-89] vs. 94% [95% CI, 70-100] [P = 0.1250]; patient-based, 70% [95% CI, 51-84] vs. 94% [95% CI, 80-99] [P = 0.0078]). Adding 18F-FLT PET/CT when 18F-FDG PET/CT was positive or inconclusive improved the diagnostic value compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT alone. In cRT HDVs, the probability of malignancy increased from 67% for 18F-FDG PET/CT alone to 100% when both tracers were positive. Conclusion: 18F-FLT PET/CT adds diagnostic value to 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected relapse. The diagnostic impact of 18F-FLT PET/CT was highest after cRT. We suggest adding 18F-FLT PET/CT when 18F-FDG PET/CT is inconclusive or positive within the previously irradiated volume to improve diagnostic value in patients for whom histologic confirmation is not easily obtained.
Authors: P E Postmus; K M Kerr; M Oudkerk; S Senan; D A Waller; J Vansteenkiste; C Escriu; S Peters Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: David Ball; G Tao Mai; Shalini Vinod; Scott Babington; Jeremy Ruben; Tomas Kron; Brent Chesson; Alan Herschtal; Marijana Vanevski; Angela Rezo; Christine Elder; Marketa Skala; Andrew Wirth; Greg Wheeler; Adeline Lim; Mark Shaw; Penelope Schofield; Louis Irving; Benjamin Solomon Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Esther G C Troost; Wouter V Vogel; Matthias A W Merkx; Piet J Slootweg; Henri A M Marres; Wenny J M Peeters; Johan Bussink; Albert J van der Kogel; Wim J G Oyen; Johannes H A M Kaanders Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Cecelia S Yap; Johannes Czernin; Michael C Fishbein; Robert B Cameron; Christiaan Schiepers; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: Chest Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Susan M Hiniker; Quaovi Sodji; Andrew Quon; Paulina M Gutkin; Natasha Arksey; Edward E Graves; Frederick T Chin; Peter G Maxim; Maximilian Diehn; Billy W Loo Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Kavitha M Prezzano; Sung Jun Ma; Gregory M Hermann; Charlotte I Rivers; Jorge A Gomez-Suescun; Anurag K Singh Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-01-10
Authors: Tine N Christensen; Seppo W Langer; Gitte Persson; Klaus Richter Larsen; Annemarie G Amtoft; Sune H Keller; Andreas Kjaer; Barbara Malene Fischer Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-02-11