Sohyun Park1,2, Ho-Young Lee3,4, Sangchul Lee5. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 2. Division of Convergence Technology, National Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 173-82, Gumiro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Republic of Korea. debobkr@gmail.com. 4. Office of eHealth Research and Business, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. debobkr@gmail.com. 5. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the clinical usefulness of F-18 fluorodeoxylucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for postoperative surveillance in the RCC patients in terms of detectability of recurrence and radiation exposure. METHODS: Three-hundred-and-forty- three RCC patients who underwent surgery and postoperative surveillance were retrospectively included. Conditional recurrent free survival (CRFS) was investigated and diagnostic performance of conventional imaging (CI) which include abdominopelvic CT or/and chest CT was compared to the FDG PET/CT. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 4.3 years (0.5-13.0 years), thirty-nine patients (11.4%) developed recurrence. CRFS of the patients increased over time with greater increment in advanced stage. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and accuracy of FDG PET/CT were 92.3%, 97%, 80%, 99.0%, and 96.5% in detecting recurrence, while those values for CI were 89.7%, 97.7%, 83.3%, 98.7%, and 96.8%, respectively. There were no significant differences in these values between FDG PET/CT and CI (McNemar test, p = 0.581). The average radiation dose from FDG PET/CT was around 16.9 ± 3.08 mSv at each follow-up time point. For early stage patients, the average radiation dose from CI was around 26.5 ± 8.57 mSv at each follow-up time point, while this was about 33.0 ± 9.76 mSv for advanced stage patients. CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT exhibited good diagnostic performance in asymptomatic RCC patients after surgery, of a level comparable to that of CI, but with a lower radiation dose.
PURPOSE: This study investigated the clinical usefulness of F-18 fluorodeoxylucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for postoperative surveillance in the RCC patients in terms of detectability of recurrence and radiation exposure. METHODS: Three-hundred-and-forty- three RCC patients who underwent surgery and postoperative surveillance were retrospectively included. Conditional recurrent free survival (CRFS) was investigated and diagnostic performance of conventional imaging (CI) which include abdominopelvic CT or/and chest CT was compared to the FDG PET/CT. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 4.3 years (0.5-13.0 years), thirty-nine patients (11.4%) developed recurrence. CRFS of the patients increased over time with greater increment in advanced stage. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and accuracy of FDG PET/CT were 92.3%, 97%, 80%, 99.0%, and 96.5% in detecting recurrence, while those values for CI were 89.7%, 97.7%, 83.3%, 98.7%, and 96.8%, respectively. There were no significant differences in these values between FDG PET/CT and CI (McNemar test, p = 0.581). The average radiation dose from FDG PET/CT was around 16.9 ± 3.08 mSv at each follow-up time point. For early stage patients, the average radiation dose from CI was around 26.5 ± 8.57 mSv at each follow-up time point, while this was about 33.0 ± 9.76 mSv for advanced stage patients. CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT exhibited good diagnostic performance in asymptomatic RCC patients after surgery, of a level comparable to that of CI, but with a lower radiation dose.
Authors: Chiara Fuccio; Francesco Ceci; Paolo Castellucci; Elena Giulia Spinapolice; Raffaella Palumbo; Daniela D'Ambrosio; Antonio Bernardo; Eugenio Brunocilla; Riccardo Schiavina; Anna Margherita Maffione; Sotirios Chondrogiannis; Gaia Grassetto; Patrick M Colletti; Domenico Rubello; Stefano Fanti; Giuseppe Trifirò Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Sherri M Donat; Mireya Diaz; Jay Todd Bishoff; Jonathan A Coleman; Philipp Dahm; Ithaar H Derweesh; S Duke Herrell; Susan Hilton; Eric Jonasch; Daniel W Lin; Victor E Reuter; Sam S Chang Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James L Chen; Daniel E Appelbaum; Masha Kocherginsky; Charles L Cowey; Wendy Kimryn Rathmell; David F McDermott; Walter M Stadler Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Hyun Woo Kwon; Jong Phil Kim; Hong Jae Lee; Jin Chul Paeng; Jae Sung Lee; Gi Jeong Cheon; Dong Soo Lee; June-Key Chung; Keon Wook Kang Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 2.153