Side-by-side reading of PET and CT scans in oncology: which patients might profit from integrated PET/CT?

  • Patrick Reinartz
  • Franz-Josef Wieres
  • Wolfram Schneider
  • Alexander Schur
  • Ulrich Buell
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Most early publications on integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) devices have reported the new scanner generation to be superior to conventional PET. However, few of these studies have analysed the situation where, in addition to PET, a current CT scan is available for side-by-side viewing. This fact is important, because combined PET/CT or a software-based fusion of the two modalities may improve diagnosis only in cases where side-by-side reading of PET and CT data does not lead to a definitive diagnosis. The aim of this study was to analyse which patients will profit from integrated PET/CT in terms of lesion characterization.

Methods

A total of 328 consecutively admitted patients referred for PET in whom a current CT scan was available were included in the study. The localization of all pathological PET lesions, as well as possible infiltration of adjacent anatomical structures, was assessed.

Results

Of 467 pathological lesions, 94.0% were correctly assessed with respect to localization and infiltration by either conventional PET alone (51.6%) or combined reading of PET and the already existing CT scans (42.4%). Hence, in only 6.0% of all lesions, affecting 6.7% of all patients, could evaluation have profited from integrated PET/CT.

Conclusion

We conclude that side-by-side viewing of PET and CT scans is essential, as in 42.4% of all cases, combined viewing was important for a correct diagnosis in our series. In up to 6.7% of patients, integrated PET/CT might have given additional information, so that in nearly 50% of patients some form of combined viewing of PET and CT data is needed for accurate lesion characterization.

Keywords

Positron emission tomography Computed tomography Oncology PET/CT Visual image fusion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Alejandro Rodón and Birgit Reinartz for general and language editing.

References

  1. 1.
    Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001;42(Suppl):1S–93S.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miles KA. Functional computed tomography on oncoloegy. Eur J Cancer 2002;38:2079–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schoder H, Erdi YE, Larson SM, Yeung HW. PET/CT: a new imaging technology in nuclear medicine. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1419–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steinert HC, von Schulthess GK. Initial clinical experience using a new integrated in-line PET/CT system. Br J Radiol 2002;S36–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P, Beyer T, Jentzen W, Muller SP, et al. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:325–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, Reiner B, Burger C, Davis JB, et al. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:853–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, Marnitz S, Beyer T, Kuehl H, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 2003;229:526–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2500–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J, et al. Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. J Am Med Assoc 2003;290:3199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1200–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pannu HK, Bristow RE, Cohade C, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT in recurrent ovarian cancer: initial observations. Radiographics 2004;24:209–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1797–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bristow RE, del Carmen MG, Pannu HK, Cohade C, Zahurak ML, Fishman EK, et al. Clinically occult recurrent ovarian cancer: patients selection for secondary cytoreductive surgery using combined PET/CT. Gynecol Oncol 2003;90:519–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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;225:575–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schöder H, Larson SM, Yeung HWD. PET/CT in oncology: integration into clinical management of lymphoma, melanoma, and gastrointestinal malignancies. J Nucl Med 2004;45:72S–81S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Juan R, Seifert B, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. Clinical evaluation of a breathing protocol for PET/CT. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1118-23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE, Kalaigian H, Kolbert KS, Pan T, Yeung H, et al. Correction for oral contrast artifacts in CT attenuation-corrected PET images obtained by combined PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1940–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF. To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45:56S–65S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamel EM, Burger C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner. Eur Radiol 2003;13:724–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Links JM, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Initial experience with oral contrast in PET/CT: phantom and clinical studies. J Nucl Med 2003;44:412–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Burger C. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. J Nucl Med 2003;44:732–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamoto Y, Chin BB, Kraitchman DL, Lawler LP, Marshall LT, Wahl RL. Effects of nonionic intravenous contrast agents at PET/CT imaging: phantom and canine studies. Radiology 2003;227:817–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goerres GW, Ziegler SI, Burger C, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK, Buck A. Artifacts at PET and PET/CT caused by metallic hip prosthetic material. Radiology 2003;226:577–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Halpern BS, Dahlbom M, Waldherr C, Yap CS, Schiepers C, Silverman DH, et al. Cardiac pacemakers and central venous lines can induce focal artifacts on CT-corrected PET images. J Nucl Med 2004;45:290–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schiepers C. PET/CT in colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1804–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vogel WV, Oyen WJG, Barentsz JO, Kaanders JHAM, Corstens FHM. PET/CT: panacea, redundancy, or something in between? J Nucl Med 2004;45:15S–24S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uhrmeister P, Allmann KH, Wertzel H, Altehoefer C, Laubenberger J, Hasse J, Langer M. Chest wall infiltration by lung cancer: value of thin-sectional CT with different reconstruction algorithms. Eur Radiol 1999;9:1304–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roberts JR, Blum MG, Arildsen R, Drinkwater DC Jr, Christian KR, Powers TA, Merrill WH. Prospective comparison of radiologic, thoracoscopic, and pathologic staging in patients with early non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:1154–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Reinartz
    • 1
  • Franz-Josef Wieres
    • 1
  • Wolfram Schneider
    • 1
  • Alexander Schur
    • 1
  • Ulrich Buell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations