Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET-CT in the initial evaluation of lung cancer

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is a resource-demanding imaging modality with increasing popularity in the workup of patients with suspected or proven lung cancer.

Methods

To review the clinical usefulness of this imaging modality in the diagnosis, staging, and pre-operative evaluation, we conducted a systematic literature search, review, and quality assessment using the rapid evidence assessment toolkit and the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine methodology. The literature search resulted in 4,208 records including 918 reviews, of which 139 met the predefined criteria and were read in full to identify relevant original articles on F-18 FDG PET-CT (1) in the evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules (n = 14), (2) in curative-intent treatment trials (n = 9), and (3) in planning of invasive procedures (n = 18).

Results

We found the following important results from the literature review:

  1. 1)

    PET-CT can rule out malignancy in most solitary pulmonary nodules due to high sensitivity (recommendation level A).

  2. 2)

    PET-CT reduces the number of futile treatment trials (recommendation level A).

  3. 3)

    The sensitivity of PET-CT in general is insufficient to rule out mediastinal lymph node metastasis (recommendation level A).

Conclusions

ᅟ

  1. 1)

    With few exceptions, solitary pulmonary nodules can safely be considered benign if the PET-CT scan is negative. Exceptions consist of small (<1 cm) and non-solid, solitary pulmonary nodules. These abnormalities should be followed up by CT in a structured programme.

  2. 2)

    No curative-intent treatment should be commenced until a PET-CT scan has excluded occult distant metastases.

  3. 3)

    In general, lymph node metastasis in the mediastinum cannot be ruled out on the basis of a negative PET-CT, and confirmative invasive staging should be performed in most patients before mediastinal metastasis is confirmed or ruled out.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Han Y, Xiao H, Zhou Z, Yuan M, Zeng Y, Wu H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies introducing integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT into the mediastinal lymph node staging of non-small-cell lung cancer. Nucl Med Commun. 2015;36:234–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Region Syddanmark. PET/CT i Region Syddanmark. http://ipaper.ipapercms.dk/RegionSyddanmark/OUH/Stabsafdelinger/Afdelingen_for_Kvalitet_og_Forskning___MTV/140519_PETCT_Undergruppens_afrapportering_Samlet_v4/. Date last updated: April 2014. Date last assessed: February 9 2015.

  3. Stevens AN. Development of PET in Western Europe (abstract OP 104). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40 Suppl 2:S1–477.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kotzerke J, Oehme L, Grosse J, Hellwig D. Positron emission tomography 2013 in Germany. Results of the query and current status. Nuklearmedizin. 2015;54(2).

  5. Dansk Lunge Cancer Gruppe. Lungecancer: Visitation, diagnose & stadieinddeling. www.lungecancer.dk. Date last updated: January 21 2015. Date last assessed: February 9 2015.

  6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Lung cancer: Diagnosis and treatment. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg121. Date last updated: April 2011. Date last assessed February 9 1015.

  7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Non-small cell lung cancer. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf. Date last updated: April 2014. Date last assessed: February 9 2015.

  8. European Respiratory Society. http://www.ers-education.org/guidelines.aspx. Date last updated: not available. Date last assessed: February 10 2015.

  9. Gould MK, Donington J, Lynch WR, Mazzone PJ, Midthun DE, Naidich DP, et al. Evaluation of individuals with pulmonary nodules: when is it lung cancer? Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143:e93S–120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Colt HG, Murgu SD, Korst RJ, Slatore CG, Unger M, Quadrelli S. Follow-up and surveillance of the patient with lung cancer after curative-intent therapy: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143:e437S–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Silvestri GA, Gonzalez AV, Jantz MA, Margolis ML, Gould MK, Tanoue LT, et al. Methods for staging non-small cell lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143:e211S–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rivera MP, Mehta AC, Wahidi MM. Establishing the diagnosis of lung cancer: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013;143:e142S–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Leyn P, Dooms C, Kuzdzal J, Lardinois D, Passlick B, Rami-Porta R, et al. Revised ESTS guidelines for preoperative mediastinal lymph node staging for non-small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45:787–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peters S, Adjei AA, Gridelli C, Reck M, Kerr K, Felip E, et al. Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:vii56–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vansteenkiste J, De Ruysscher D, Eberhardt WE, Lim E, Senan S, Felip E, et al. Early and locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:vi89–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2014. www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/acspc-042151.pdf. Date last updated: 2014. Date last assessed: February 9 2015.

  17. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Finding the evidence 1 – Using PICO to formulate a search question. http://www.cebm.net/finding-the-evidence-1-using-pico-to-formulate-a-search-question/. Date last updated: 2014. Date last assessed: February 9 2015.

  19. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Khangura S, Polisena J, Clifford TJ, Farrah K, Kamel C. Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):20–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Varker T, Forbes D, Dell L, Weston A, Merlin T, Hodson S, et al. Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology. J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 [E-pub ahead of print].

  23. Civil Service. What is a rapid evidence assesement? http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance/rapid-evidence-assessment/what-is. Date last updated: N/A. Date last assessed: July 29 2015.

  24. Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G, Payne E. Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(44):iii-iv, xi-267.

  25. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of evidence (March 2009). http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Date last updated: 2014. Date last assessed: February 9 2015.

  26. Fletcher JW, Kymes SM, Gould M, Alazraki N, Coleman RE, Lowe VJ, et al. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET and CT in the characterization of solitary pulmonary nodules. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:179–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Harders SW. LUCIS: lung cancer imaging studies. DMJ. 2012;59(11):B4542.

  28. Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, Naruke T, Suemasu K, Uno K. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3 cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images. Lung Cancer. 2004;45:19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yi CA, Lee KS, Kim BT, Choi JY, Kwon OJ, Kim H, et al. Tissue characterization of solitary pulmonary nodule: comparative study between helical dynamic CT and integrated PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:443–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Heyneman LE, Patz EF. PET imaging in patients with bronchioloalveolar cell carcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2002;38:261–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yap CS, Schiepers C, Fishbein MC, Phelps ME, Czernin J. FDG-PET imaging in lung cancer: how sensitive is it for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma? Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:1166–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Christensen JA, Nathan MA, Mullan BP, Hartman TE, Swensen SJ, Lowe VJ. Characterization of the solitary pulmonary nodule: 18F-FDG PET versus nodule-enhancement CT. AJM Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1361–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kagna O, Solomonov A, Keidar Z, Bar-Shalom R, Fruchter O, Yigla M, et al. The value of FDG-PET/CT in assessing single pulmonary nodules in patients at high risk of lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:997–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Daniels CE, Lowe VJ, Aubry MC, Allen MS, Jett JR. The utility of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of carcinoid tumors presenting as pulmonary nodules. Chest. 2007;131:255–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Herder GJ, Golding RP, Hoekstra OS, Comans EF, Teule GJ, Postmus PE, et al. The performance of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in small solitary pulmonary nodules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:1231–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bar-Shalom R, Kagna O, Israel O, Guralnik L. Noninvasive diagnosis of solitary pulmonary lesions in cancer patients based on 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose avidity on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer. 2008;113:3213–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim SK, Allen-Auerbach M, Goldin J, Fueger BJ, Dahlbom M, Brown M, et al. Accuracy of PET/CT in characterization of solitary pulmonary lesions. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:214–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jeong SY, Lee KS, Shin KM, Bae YA, Kim BT, Choe BK, et al. Efficacy of PET/CT in the characterization of solid or partly solid solitary pulmonary nodules. Lung Cancer. 2008;61:186–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dewan NA, Reeb SD, Gupta NC, Gobar LS, Scott WJ. PET-FDG imaging and transthoracic needle lung aspiration biopsy in evaluation of pulmonary lesions. A comparative risk-benefit analysis. Chest. 1995;108:441–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Herder GJ, Kramer H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Pruim J, van Tinteren H, et al. Traditional versus up-front [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch cooperative randomized study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1800–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kozower BD, Meyers BF, Reed CE, Jones DR, Decker PA, Putnam Jr JB. Does positron emission tomography prevent nontherapeutic pulmonary resections for clinical stage IA lung cancer? Ann Thoracic Surg. 2008;85:1166–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Viney RC, Boyer MJ, King MT, Kenny PM, Pollicino CA, McLean JM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the role of positron emission tomography in the management of stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2357–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Maziak DE, Darling GE, Inculet RI, Gulenchyn KY, Driedger AA, Ung YC, et al. Positron emission tomography in staging early lung cancer: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:221–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, Larsen S, Loft A, Bertelsen A, et al. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET-CT. New Engl J Med. 2009;361:32–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. MacManus MP, Hicks RJ, Matthews JP, Hogg A, McKenzie AF, Wirth A, et al. High rate of detection of unsuspected distant metastases by pet in apparent stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for radical radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncology Biol Phys. 2001;50:287–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Reed CE, Harpole DH, Posther KE, Woolson SL, Downey RJ, Meyers BF, et al. Results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0050 trial: the utility of positron emission tomography in staging potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:1943–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. New Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. De Wever W, Ceyssens S, Mortelmans L, Stroobants S, Marchal G, Bogaert J, et al. Additional value of PET-CT in the staging of lung cancer: comparison with CT alone, PET alone and visual correlation of PET and CT. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:23–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lardinois D, Weder W, Roudas M, von Schulthess GK, Tutic M, Moch H, et al. Etiology of solitary extrapulmonary positron emission tomography and computed tomography findings in patients with lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6846–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Darling GE, Maziak DE, Inculet RI, Gulenchyn KY, Driedger AA, Ung YC, et al. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography compared with invasive mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer: results of mediastinal staging in the early lung positron emission tomography trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:1367–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Herth FJ, Eberhardt R, Krasnik M, Ernst A. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration of lymph nodes in the radiologically and positron emission tomography-normal mediastinum in patients with lung cancer. Chest. 2008;133:887–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Fischer BM, Mortensen J, Hansen H, Vilmann P, Larsen SS, Loft A, et al. Multimodality approach to mediastinal staging in non-small cell lung cancer. Faults and benefits of PET-CT: a randomised trial. Thorax. 2011;66:294–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bryant AS, Cerfolio RJ, Klemm KM, Ojha B. Maximum standard uptake value of mediastinal lymph nodes on integrated FDG-PET-CT predicts pathology in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thoracic Surg. 2006;82:417–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Eloubeidi MA. Routine mediastinoscopy and esophageal ultrasound fine-needle aspiration in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who are clinically N2 negative: a prospective study. Chest. 2006;130(6):1791–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Shim SS, Lee KS, Kim BT, Chung MJ, Lee EJ, Han J, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of integrated FDG PET/CT and CT alone for preoperative staging. Radiology. 2005;236:1011–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Gonzalez-Stawinski GV, Lemaire A, Merchant F, O’Halloran E, Coleman RE, Harpole DH, et al. A comparative analysis of positron emission tomography and mediastinoscopy in staging non-small cell lung cancer. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:1900–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stroobants SG, D’Hoore I, Dooms C, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, De Wever W, et al. Additional value of whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of distant metastases of non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2003;4:242–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Lu Y, Xie D, Huang W, Gong H, Yu J. 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of adrenal masses in lung cancer patients. Neoplasma. 2010;57:129–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Ozcan Kara P, Kara T, Kara Gedik G, Kara F, Sahin O, Ceylan Gunay E, et al. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in differentiating between benign and malignant adrenal lesions. Nucl Med Commun. 2011;32:106–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Al-Sarraf N, Aziz R, Gately K, Lucey J, Wilson L, McGovern E, et al. Pattern and predictors of occult mediastinal lymph node involvement in non-small cell lung cancer patients with negative mediastinal uptake on positron emission tomography. Eur J Cardio Thoracic Surg. 2008;33:104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kumar R, Xiu Y, Yu JQ, Takalkar A, El-Haddad G, Potenta S, et al. 18F 18F-FDG PET in evaluation of adrenal lesions in patients with lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:2058–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Metser U, Miller E, Lerman H, Lievshitz G, Avital S, Even-Sapir E. 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of adrenal masses. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:32–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Gupta NC, Graeber GM, Tamim WJ, Rogers JS, Irisari L, Bishop HA. Clinical utility of PET-FDG imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant adrenal masses in lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2001;3:59–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lee PC, Port JL, Korst RJ, Liss Y, Meherally DN, Altorki NK. Risk factors for occult mediastinal metastases in clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84:177–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Salomaa ER, Sallinen S, Hiekkaen H, Liippo K. Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Chest. 2005;128:2282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kim JI, Park CM, Lee SM, Goo JM. Rapid needle-out patient-rollover approach after cone beam CT-guided lung biopsy: effect on pneumothorax rate in 1,191 consecutive patients. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1845–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Boskovic T, Stanic J, Pena-Karan S, Zarogoulidis P, Drevelegas K, Katsikogiannis N, et al. Pneumothorax after transthoracic needle biopsy of lung lesions under CT guidance. J Thorac Dis. 2014;6:S99–107.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Soret M, Bacharach SL, Buvat I. Partial-volume effect in PET tumor imaging. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):932–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hoetjes NJ, van Velden FHP, Hoekstra OS, Hoekstra CJ, Krak NC, Lammertsma AA, et al. Partial volume correction strategies for quantitative FDG PET in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(9):1679–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Salavati A, Borofsky S, Boon-Keng TK, Houshmand S, Khiewvan B, Saboury B, et al. Application of partial volume effect correction and 4D PET in the quantification of FDG avid lung lesions. Mol Imaging Biol. 2015;17(1):140–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Naidich DP, Bankier AA, MacMahon H, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Pistolesi M, Goo JM, et al. Recommendations for the management of subsolid pulmonary nodules detected at CT: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2013;266:304–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. MacMahon H, Austin JH, Gamsu G, Herold CJ, Jett JR, Naidich DP, et al. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: a statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005;237:395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Gaeta M, Volta S, Scribano E, Loria G, Vallone A, Pandolfo I. Air-space pattern in lung metastasis from adenocarcinoma of the GI tract. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996;2:300–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Watanabe S, Asamura H, Suzuki K, Tsuchiya R. Recent results of postoperative mortality for surgical resections in lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;7:999–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Truong MT, Pan T, Erasmus JJ. Pitfalls in integrated CT-PET of the thorax: implications in oncologic imaging. J Thorac Imaging. 2006;21:111–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Smoragiewicz M, Laskin J, Wilson D, Ramsden K, Yee J, Lam S, et al. Using pet-ct to reduce futile thoracotomy rates in non-small-cell lung cancer: a population-based review. Curr Oncol. 2014;21(6):e768–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Halaç M, Özhan M, Yilmaz Aksoy S, Vatankulu B, Aliyev A, Asa S, et al. The role of FDG-PET/CT in detecting unsuspected and unknown distant metastasis in the initial staging of NSCLC. Turk J Med Sci. 2014;44(6):1029–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Dalli A, Selimoglu Sen H, Coskunsel M, Komek H, Abakay O, Sergi C, et al. Diagnostic value of PET/CT in differentiating benign from malignant solitary pulmonary nodules. J BUON. 2013;18(4):935–41.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Harders SW, Madsen HH, Hjorthaug K, Arveschoug AK, Rasmussen TR, Meldgaard P, et al. Mediastinal staging in non-small-cell lung carcinoma: computed tomography versus F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. Cancer Imaging. 2014;14:23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Al-Hakami HA, Makis W, Anand S, Mlynarek A, Black MJ, Stern J, et al. Head and neck incidentalomas on positron emission tomographic scanning: ignore or investigate? J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;40:384–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Shie P, Cardarelli R, Sprawls K, Fulda KG, Taur A. Systematic review: prevalence of malignant incidental thyroid nodules identified on fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30:742–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Chae EY, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Kim HJ, Oh HY, et al. Analysis of incidental focal hypermetabolic uptake in the breast as detected by 18F-FDG PET/CT: clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:530–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Treglia G, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, Leccisotti L, Meduri GM, Spitilli MG, et al. Clinical significance of incidental focal colorectal 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: our experience and a review of the literature. Colorectal Dis. 2011;14:174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Hess S, Blomberg BA, Zhu HJ, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Alavi A. The pivotal role of FDG-PET/CT in modern medicine. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:232–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Division of Respiratory Medicine, Vejle Hospital, Kabbeltoft 25, 7100, Vejle, Denmark

    Poul Henning Madsen

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark

    Paw Christian Holdgaard

  3. Department of Quality and Research/HTA, Odense University Hospital and Medical Research Library, Odense University Hospital/University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Janne Buck Christensen

  4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen

Authors
  1. Poul Henning Madsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paw Christian Holdgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janne Buck Christensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Poul Henning Madsen.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

PHM has received personal fees from the Region of Southern Denmark, Intermune, Sandoz and Astra-Zeneca. PHM has received travel grants from Norpharma, Intermune, Olympus, and Sandoz. JBC has received personal fees from the Region of Southern Denmark. PCH and PFHC have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Not relevant.

Appendix: search terms

Appendix: search terms

Lung cancer synonyms:

  • Bronchogenic Carcinoma

  • Bronchogenic Carcinomas

  • Bronchial Carcinoma

  • Bronchial Carcinomas

  • Small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Small Cell Lung Cancers

  • Small Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • Small Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Small Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • Small Cell Lung Tumor

  • Small Cell Lung Tumors

  • Small Cell Lung Tumour

  • Small Cell Lung Tumours

  • Small-Cell Lung Cancer

  • Small-Cell Lung Cancers

  • Small-Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • Small-Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Small-Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • Small-Cell Lung Tumor

  • Small-Cell Lung Tumors

  • Small-Cell Lung Tumour

  • Small-Cell Lung Tumours

  • Oat Cell Lung Cancer

  • Oat Cell Lung Cancers

  • Oat Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • Oat Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • Oat Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Oat Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • Oat Cell Lung Tumor

  • Oat Cell Lung Tumors

  • Oat Cell Lung Tumors

  • Oat Cell Lung Tumour

  • Oat Cell Lung Tumours

  • Oat-Cell Lung Cancer

  • Oat-Cell Lung Cancers

  • Oat-Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • Oat-Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • Oat-Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Oat-Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • Oat-Cell Lung Tumor

  • Oat-Cell Lung Tumors

  • Oat-Cell Lung Tumors

  • Oat-Cell Lung Tumour

  • Oat-Cell Lung Tumours

  • SCLC

  • Non Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Non Small Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • Non Small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Non Small Cell Lung Cancers

  • Non Small Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • Non Small Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • Non Small Cell Lung Tumor

  • Non Small Cell Lung Tumors

  • Non Small Cell Lung Tumour

  • Non Small Cell Lung Tumours

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancers

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumor

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumors

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumour

  • Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumours

  • Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

  • Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancers

  • Nonsmall Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Nonsmall Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • NonSmall Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • NonSmall Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • NonSmall Cell Lung Tumor

  • NonSmall Cell Lung Tumors

  • NonSmall Cell Lung Tumour

  • NonSmall Cell Lung Tumours

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinomas

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Neoplasm

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Neoplasms

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Tumor

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Tumors

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Tumour

  • Non-Small Cell Lung Tumours

  • NSCLC

PET synonyms:

  • Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography

  • X-Ray Computed Tomography and Positron-Emission Tomography

  • X Ray Computed Tomography and Positron Emission Tomography

  • PET and CT

  • Hybrid Pet and CT

  • Integrated PET CT

  • Positron Emission Tomography

  • PET Scan

  • PET Scans

  • Positron-Emission Tomography

  • “Positron Emission Tomographies”

  • “Positron Emission Tomographic”

  • “PET” AND “CT”

  • PET/CT

  • PET

  • “petscan”

  • “petscans”

  • “petscanning”

  • “pet scanning”

  • Fluorodeoxyglucose F18

  • Fluorodeoxy Glucose

  • Fludeoxyglucose F18

  • Fluorodeoxyglucose F 18

  • Fludeoxyglucose F 18

  • Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose

  • Fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose

  • Fluorine-18-Fludeoxyglucose

  • Fluorine 18 Fludeoxyglucose

  • 18F Fludeoxyglucose

  • 18-F Fludeoxyglucose

  • 18F Fluorodeoxyglucose

  • 18-F Fluorodeoxyglucose

  • 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose

  • F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose

  • F-18 Fludeoxyglucose

  • F18 Fludeoxyglucose

  • F18 Fluorodeoxyglucose

  • 18FDG

  • 18-FDG

  • 18 FDG

  • 18F FDG

  • 18-F-FDG

  • 18F-FDG

  • F18 FDG

  • F-18-FDG

  • F-18 FDG

  • F 18 FDG

  • FDG

  • FDG-PET

  • FDG-PET-CT

  • FDG-PET/CT

  • 2-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose

  • 2 Fluoro 2 deoxy D glucose

  • 2-Fluoro-2-deoxyglucose

  • 2 Fluoro 2 deoxyglucoses

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Madsen, P.H., Holdgaard, P.C., Christensen, J.B. et al. Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET-CT in the initial evaluation of lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43, 2084–2097 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3407-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3407-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation