Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Usefulness of both PET/CT with F18-FDG and whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging in cancer screening: a preliminary report

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with fluorodeoxyglucose (F18-FDG) is useful for the detection of malignant lesions, including metastatic lesions, and this technique is widely used in cancer screening. However, this approach may occasionally yield false-positive and false-negative findings. At our PET center, to increase the accuracy of PET/CT, we use PET/CT and whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (WB-DWI) together. This study aimed to assess the usefulness of this combination.

Methods

We examined 29 subjects with confirmed diagnosis. All of them had undergone PET/CT and WB-DWI on the same day. Twenty-seven of them also underwent ultrasonography, blood testing, and upper gastrointestinal series on the same day and two fecal occult blood tests on another day. WB-DWI was performed on a 1.5-T MRI unit with a b value of 0 and 800 or 1000 s/mm2. For all 29 cases, PET/CT and WB-DWI were classified to be positive or negative, and the diagnostic ability was calculated for each modality.

Results

Among the 29 subjects, 17 had malignant tumors and 12 had benign tumors or no abnormalities. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of PET/CT were 65%, 25%, 55%, 33%, and 48%, respectively; while the corresponding values for WB-DWI were 59%, 100%, 100%, 63%, and 76%, respectively. By considering the result to be negative when PET/CT findings were positive but WB-DWI findings were negative, specificity increased from 25 to 100%, and accuracy increased from 48 to 76%. On the other hand, by considering the result to be positive when the findings of either PET/CT or WB-DWI were positive, sensitivity increased from 65 to 76%, and accuracy increased from 48 to 55%.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that using both PET/CT and WB-DWI together can increase accuracy in cancer screening. However, this approach was not able to detect malignant lesions in some cases, indicating that there were limitations with imaging certain organs. Therefore, it is important to further understand the features of PET/CT and WB-DWI and use them appropriately for each organ. Additionally, given that the study sample was relatively small, further research is needed to validate these findings.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Minamimoto R, Senda M, Jinnouchi S, Terauchi T, Yoshida T, Murano T, et al. The current status of an FDG-PET cancer screening program in Japan, based on a 4-year (2006–2009) nationwide survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2013;27:46–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kojima S, Zhou B, Teramukai S, Hara A, Kosaka N, Matsuo Y, et al. Cancer screening of healthy volunteers using whole-body 18F-FDG-PET scans: the Nishidai clinic study. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(12):1842–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nishizawa S, Okada Y. PET cancer screening with multiple imaging modalities: current status and prospects. Jpn J Clin Radiol. 2017;62:645–53.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T, Yasuda S, Nasu S, Cauteren M. Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med. 2004;22(4):275–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Li B, Li Q, Nie W, Liu S. Diagnostic value of whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for detection of primary and metastatic malignancies: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(2):338–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Komori T, Narabayashi I, Matsumura K, Matsuki M, Akagi H, Ogura Y, et al. 2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography versus whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of malignant lesions: initial experience. Ann Nucl Med. 2007;21(4):209–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Naganawa S, Yoshikawa T, Yasaka K, Maeda E, Hayashi N, Abe O. Role of delayed-time-point imaging during abdominal and pelvic cancer screening using FDG-PET/CT in the general population. Medicine. 2017;96:46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen SQ, Huang M, Shen YY, Liu CL, Xu CX. Abbreviated MRI protocols for detecting breast cancer in women with dense breasts. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(3):470–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Volpi S, Ali JM, Tasker A, Peryt A, Aresu G, Coonar AS. The role of positron emission tomography in the diagnosis, staging and response assessment of non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(5):95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Usuda K, Sagawa M, Motono N, Ueno M, Tanaka M, Machida Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion weighted imaging of malignant and benign pulmonary nodules and masses: comparison with positron emission tomography. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(11):4629–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Usuda K, Sagawa M, Maeda S, Motono N, Tanaka M, Machida Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging compared to PET-CT plus brain MRI in staging clinically resectable lung cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(6):2775–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Groheux D, Espié M, Giacchetti S, Hindié E. Performance of FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of breast cancer. Radiology. 2013;266(2):388–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pinker K, Moy L, Sutton EJ, Mann RM, Weber M, Thakur SB, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping for breast cancer detection as a stand-alone parameter: comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000465.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Stadlbauer A, Bernt R, Gruber S, Bogner W, Pinker K, van der Riet W, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) for the diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(10):2349–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu Y. The place of FDG PET/CT in renal cell carcinoma: value and limitations. Front Oncol. 2016;6:201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Goyal A, Sharma R, Bhalla AS, Gamanagatti S, Seth A. Comparison of MDCT, MRI and MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluation of focal renal lesions: the defender, challenger, and winner! Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2018;28(1):27–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen YK, Su CT, Chi KH, Cheng RH, Wang SC, Hsu CH. Utility of 18F-FDG PET/CT uptake patterns in Waldeyer’s ring for differentiating benign from malignant lesions in lateral pharyngeal recess of nasopharynx. J Nucl Med. 2007;48:8–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhatia KS, King AD, Yeung DK, Mo F, Vlantis AC, Yu KH, et al. Can diffusion-weighted imaging distinguish between normal and squamous cell carcinoma of the palatine tonsil? Br J Radiol. 2010;83:753–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Usuda K, Maeda S, Motono N, Ueno M, Tanaka M, Machida Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging for multiple hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes with FDG accumulation. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen L, Xu J, Bao J, Huang X, Hu X, Xia Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in differentiating malignant from benign thyroid nodules: a meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2016;6(1):e008413. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. William M, Anthony C. Thyroid incidentalomas on 18F-FDG PET/CT: clinical significance and controversies. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2017;26:93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Minamimoto R, Senda M, Terauchi T, Jinnouchi S, Inoue T, Iinuma T, et al. Analysis of various malignant neoplasms detected by FDG-PET cancer screening program: based on a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med. 2011;25(1):45–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Giganti F, Ambrosi A, Petrone MC, Canevari C, Chiari D, Salerno A, et al. Prospective comparison of MR with diffusion-weighted imaging, endoscopic ultrasound, MDCT and positron emission tomography-CT in the pre-operative staging of oesophageal cancer: results from a pilot study. Br J Radiol 2016;89(1068):20160087. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160087.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Bond J, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Leufkens AM, Kwee TC, van den Bosch MA, Mali WP, Takahara T, Siersema PD. Diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of colorectal polyps: feasibility study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(1):28–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Eugénie R, Laurence L, Guillaume B, Mael P, Astrid L, Etienne G, et al. Incidental colorectal focal 18F-FDG uptake: a novel indication for colonoscopy. Endosc Int Open. 2017;05:E92430.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Avcu S, Koseoglu MN, Ceylan K, Bulut MD, Unal O. The value of diffusion-weighted MRI in the diagnosis of malignant and benign urinary bladder lesions. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:875–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bednarova S, Lindenberg ML, Vinsensia M, Zuiani C, Choyke PL, Turkbey B. Positron emission tomography (PET) in primary prostate cancer staging and risk assessment. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):413–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Fusco R, Sansone M, Granata V, Setola SV, Petrillo A. A systematic review on multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer detection. Infect Agent Cancer. 2017;12(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13027-017-0168-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tarnoki DL, Tarnoki AD, Richter A, Karlinger K, Berczi V, Pickuth D. Clinical value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in health screening of general adult population. Radiol Oncol. 2015;49(1):10–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gaien Higashi Clinic, 2F Yotuya Medical Building, 20 Samon-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroto Sasamori, Kimiichi Uno & Jin Wu

Authors
  1. Hiroto Sasamori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimiichi Uno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jin Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroto Sasamori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sasamori, H., Uno, K. & Wu, J. Usefulness of both PET/CT with F18-FDG and whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging in cancer screening: a preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med 33, 78–85 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1307-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-018-1307-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation