Value of integrated PET/CT for lesion localisation in cancer patients: a comparative study

  • Ettore Pelosi
  • Cristina Messa
  • Sandro Sironi
  • Maria Picchio
  • Claudio Landoni
  • Valentino Bettinardi
  • Luigi Gianolli
  • Alessandro Del Maschio
  • Maria Carla Gilardi
  • Ferruccio Fazio
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the value of integrated PET/CT and separate PET plus morphological imaging studies for lesion localisation in cancer patients. Two different series of consecutive patients who had previously been treated for neoplastic disease were considered. One series consisted of 105 patients who had undergone [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT (n=70) or [11C]choline PET/CT (n=35) studies (PET/CT group). The other series comprised 105 patients who had undergone FDG PET scan (n=70) or [11C]choline PET scan (n=35) alone; in this series, PET findings were correlated with the results of morphological imaging (MI) studies, i.e. CT (n=92) or MR imaging (n=13) (PET+MI group). Regions of abnormal tracer uptake at PET scanning were classified as ambiguous or unambiguous depending on their precise anatomical localisation. A total of 207 and 196 lesions were found in the PET/CT and PET+MI groups, respectively. The difference in terms of number of lesions per patient detected with the two imaging protocols was not statistically significant (P=0.718). When analysis of lesion localisation was performed, there were 7/207 (3.4%) and 30/196 (15.3%) ambiguous lesions in the PET/CT and PET+MI groups, respectively. The number of ambiguous lesions was significantly higher in the PET+MI group than in the PET/CT group (χ2=15.768, P<0.0001). Comparison of the effect of use of the different tracers on reporting of PET/CT versus PET+MI revealed that the improvement in the final report in [11C]choline PET/CT studies was similar to that observed in [18F]FDG studies. In cancer patients, PET/CT shows higher diagnostic accuracy for lesion localisation than PET plus morphological imaging studies performed independently. This result does not seem to be affected by the type of tracer used.

Keywords

PET/CT Lesion localisation Comparative study FDG Choline 

References

  1. 1.
    Engel H, Steinert H, Buck A, Berthold T, Huch Boni RA, von Schulthess GK. Whole-body PET: physiological and artifactual fluorodeoxyglucose accumulations. J Nucl Med 1996; 37:441–446.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook G, Maisey M, Fogelman I. Normal variants, artefacts and interpretative pitfalls in PET imaging with 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose and carbon-11 methionine. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26:1363–1378.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L, Nutt R. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1369–1379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kluetz PG, Meltzer CC, Villemagne VL, et al. Combined PET/CT imaging in oncology. Impact on patient management. Clin Positron Imaging 2000; 3:223–230.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Townsend DW. A combined PET/CT scanner: the choices. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:533–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ell PJ, von Schulthess GK. PET/CT: a new road map. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:719–720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jager PL, Slart RH, Corstens FH, Hoekstra OS, Teule JJ, Oyen WJ. PET-CT: a matter of opinion? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:470–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Costa DC, Visvikis D, Crosdale I, Pigden I, Townsend C, Bomanji J, Prvulovich E, Lonn A, Ell PJ. Positron emission and computed X-ray tomography: a coming together. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24:351–358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2500–2507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, Altman H, Keidar Z, Israel O. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:1200–1209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002; 225:575–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charron M, Beyer T, Bohnen NN, Kinahan PE, Dachille M, Jerin J, Nutt R, Meltzer CC, Villemagne V, Townsend DW. Image analysis in patients with cancer studied with a combined PET and CT scanner. Clin Nucl Med 2000; 25:905–910.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamacher K, Coenen HH, Stocklin G. Efficient stereospecific synthesis of no-carrier-added 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose using aminopolyether supported nucleophilic substitution. J Nucl Med 1986; 27:235–238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Långström B, Lundqvist H. The preparation of [11C]methyl iodide and its use in the synthesis of [11C]methyl-l-methionine. Int J Appl Radiat Isot 1976; 27:357–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hara T, Kosaka N, Shinoura N, Kondo T. PET imaging of brain tumor with [methyl-11C]choline. J Nucl Med 1997; 38:842–847.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shinoura N, Nishijima M, Hara T, Haisa T, Yamamoto H, Fujii K, Mitsui I, Kosaka N, Kondo T, Hara T. Brain tumors: detection with C-11 choline PET. Radiology 1997; 202:497–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bettinardi V, Pagani E, Gilardi MC, Landoni C, Riddell C, Rizzo G, Castiglioni I, Belluzzo D, Lucignani G, Schubert S, Fazio F. An automatic classification technique for attenuation correction in positron emission tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1999; 26:447–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Flamen P, Hoekstra OS, Homans F, Van Cutsem E, Maes A, Stroobants S, Peeters M, Penninckx F, Filez L, Bleichrodt RP, Mortelmans L. Unexplained rising carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer: the utility of positron emission tomography (PET). Eur J Cancer 2001; 37:862–869.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Suarez M, Perez-Castejon MJ, Jimenez A, Domper M, Ruiz G, Montz R, Carreras JL. Early diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer with FDG-PET in patients progressive elevation of serum tumor markers. Q J Nucl Med 2002; 46:113–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nakamoto Y, Osman MM, Cohade C, Marshall LT, Links JM, Kohlmyer S, Wahl RL. PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images. J Nucl Med 2002; 43:1137–1143.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AHR, von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:922–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goerres G, Kamel E, Heidelberg TH, Schwitter MR, Burger C, von Schulthess GK. PET-CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29:351–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Leal JP, Wahl RL. Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT: frequency in 300 patients. J Nucl Med 2003; 44:240–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dizendorf EV, Treyer V, Von Schulthess GK, Hany TF. Application of oral contrast media in coregistered positron emission tomography-CT. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:477–481.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, Marnitz S, Beyer T, Kuehl H, Bockisch A, Debatin JF, Freudenberg LS. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 2003; 229:526–533.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ettore Pelosi
    • 1
  • Cristina Messa
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sandro Sironi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Maria Picchio
    • 1
  • Claudio Landoni
    • 1
    • 2
  • Valentino Bettinardi
    • 1
  • Luigi Gianolli
    • 1
  • Alessandro Del Maschio
    • 4
  • Maria Carla Gilardi
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ferruccio Fazio
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineInstitute H S. RaffaeleMilanItaly
  2. 2.School of MedicineUniversity of Milano BicoccaMilanItaly
  3. 3.IBFM-CNRInstitute for Molecular Bioimaging and PhysiologyMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity Vita-Salute, Institute H S. RaffaeleMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations