Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PET in Other Malignancies

  • Chapter
PET/CT

  • 1277 Accesses

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Delgado-Bolton RC, Fernandez-Perez C, Gonzalez-Mate A, Carreras JL. Metaanalysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in primary tumor detection in unknown primary tumors. J Nucl Med 2003;44(8):1301–1314.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wong TZ, Jones EL, Coleman RE. Positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-2-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose for evaluating local and distant disease in patients with cervical cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6(1):55–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, sixth edition. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Menzel C, Dobert N, Hamscho N, et al. The influence of CA 125 and CEA levels on the results of (18)F-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in suspected recurrence of epithelial ovarian cancer. Strahlenther Onkol 2004;180(8):497–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Takekuma M, Maeda M, Ozawa T, Yasumi K, Torizuka T. Positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2005;10(3):177–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Picchio M, Sironi S, Messa C, et al. Advanced ovarian carcinoma: usefulness of [(18)F]FDG-PET in combination with CT for lesion detection after primary treatment. Q J Nucl Med 2003;47(2):77–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44(9):1407–1412.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Cohade C, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT in recurrent ovarian cancer: initial observations. Radiographics 2004;24(1):209–223.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. What are the key statistics for stomach cancer?: American Cancer Society (www.cancer.org); 2005 Accessed October 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chen J, Cheong JH, Yun MJ, et al. Improvement in preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma with positron emission tomography. Cancer 2005;103(11):2383–2390.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(24):4604–4610.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mochiki E, Kuwano H, Katoh H, Asao T, Oriuchi N, Endo K. Evaluation of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for gastric cancer. World J Surg 2004;28(3):247–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jeng LB, Changlai SP, Shen YY, Lin CC, Tsai CH, Kao CH. Limited value of 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis B virus carriers. Hepatogastroenterology 2003;50(54):2154–2156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wudel LJ, Jr., Delbeke D, Morris D, et al. The role of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in the evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am Surg 2003;69(2):117–124; discussion 124–126.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bredella MA, Steinbach L, Caputo G, Segall G, Hawkins R. Value of FDG PET in the assessment of patients with multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184(4):1199–1204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jadvar H, Conti PS. Diagnostic utility of FDG PET in multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol 2002;31(12):690–694.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mahfouz T, Miceli MH, Saghafifar F, et al. 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography contributes to the diagnosis and management of infections in patients with multiple myeloma: a study of 165 infectious episodes. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(31):7857–7863.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Heinrich S, Goerres GW, Schafer M, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its costeffectiveness. Ann Surg 2005;242(2):235–243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Higashi T, Saga T, Nakamoto Y, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) — usefulness and limitations in “clinical reality”. Ann Nucl Med 2003;17(4):261–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coleman R, DeGrado T, Wang S, et al. 9:30–9:45. Preliminary evaluation of F-18 fluorocholine (FCH) as a PET tumor imaging agent. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3(4):147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de Jong IJ, Pruim J, Elsinga PH, Vaalburg W, Mensink HJ. Visualization of prostate cancer with 11C-choline positron emission tomography. Eur Urol 2002;42(1):18–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Price DT, Coleman RE, Liao RP, Robertson CN, Polascik TJ, DeGrado TR. Comparison of [18 F]fluorocholine and [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose for positron emission tomography of androgen dependent and androgen independent prostate cancer. J Urol 2002;168(1):273–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schmid DT, John H, Zweifel R, et al. Fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: initial experience. Radiology 2005;235(2):623–628.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoh CK, Seltzer MA, Franklin J, deKernion JB, Phelps ME, Belldegrun A. Positron emission tomography in urological oncology. J Urol 1998;159(2):347–356.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kang DE, White RL, Jr., Zuger JH, Sasser HC, Teigland CM. Clinical use of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2004;171(5):1806–1809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ioannidis JP, Lau J. 18F-FDG PET for the diagnosis and grading of soft-tissue sarcoma: a meta-analysis. J Nucl Med 2003;44(5):717–724.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson GR, Zhuang H, Khan J, Chiang SB, Alavi A. Roles of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-deoxyglucose in the detection of local recurrent and distant metastatic sarcoma. Clin Nucl Med 2003;28(10):815–820.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M, et al. 18FDG-Positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer 2003;39(14):2012–2020.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. How many men get testicular cancer?: American Cancer Society (www.cancer.org); 2005 Accessed October 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Albers P, Bender H, Yilmaz H, Schoeneich G, Biersack HJ, Mueller SC. Positron emission tomography in the clinical staging of patients with Stage I and II testicular germ cell tumors. Urology 1999;53(4):808–811.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lassen U, Daugaard G, Eigtved A, Hojgaard L, Damgaard K, Rorth M. Whole-body FDG-PET in patients with stage I non-seminomatous germ cell tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30(3):396–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C, et al. 2-18fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor for viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma: an update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(6):1034–1039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Ronald B. Workman Jr. MD (Resident)

  2. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    R. Edward Coleman MD (Professor and Department of Radiology, Director of Nuclear Medicine)

Authors
  1. Ronald B. Workman Jr. MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Edward Coleman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

    Ronald B. Workman Jr. MD (Resident) (Resident)

  2. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

    R. Edward Coleman MD (Professor Department of Radiology and Director of Nuclear Medicine) (Professor Department of Radiology and Director of Nuclear Medicine)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Workman, R.B., Coleman, R.E. (2006). PET in Other Malignancies. In: Workman, R.B., Coleman, R.E. (eds) PET/CT. Springer, New York, NY . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38335-4_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38335-4_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-32166-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-38335-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation