Multicentre assessment and monitored use of [18F]FDG-PET in oncology: the Spanish experience

  • Manuel Rodríguez-GarridoEmail author
  • Cristina Asensio-del-Barrio
Original article



The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of [18F]FDG-PET in oncological diseases and to assess its clinical utility and impact (on the clinical and therapeutic management of these patients). This health technology assessment was performed in Spain, using the monitored use (MU) procedure.


A multicentre and prospective follow-up study was performed in a non-consecutive sample of oncological patients who were examined with PET and other conventional diagnostic tests. A protocol for this MU method (PET-MU protocol) was developed, including the three forms used to collect all the information. Enrolment of new patients began in June 2002 and continued until August 2004. A descriptive analysis and an evaluation of the diagnostic effectiveness of FDG-PET were performed.


The study population comprised 2,824 oncological patients (the third form relating to follow-up was completed for only 967 of these patients) from 100 Spanish hospitals and 16 PET centres. Seventy-nine percent of cases met the clinical requirements of the PET-MU protocol. Global diagnostic parameters of PET performance and their 95% CI values were as follows: sensitivity 86% (82–89%), specificity 83% (79–86%), positive and negative predictive values 87% (83–90%) and 82% (77–85%) respectively, diagnostic accuracy 84% (82–87%) and diagnostic odds ratio 28.75 (19.75–41.84). PET detected unsuspected new lesions in 39% of patients and avoided other unnecessary diagnostic techniques and treatments in 69% of cases. In 88% of cases, PET was considered useful by the physicians who asked for the PET tests (it was deemed decisive in 30% and very useful in almost 37%).


This PET-MU study has confirmed the high diagnostic effectiveness of FDG-PET for oncological indications and demonstrates that it has a great influence on the clinical and therapeutic management of patients.


Health technology assessment Positron emission tomography FDG Diagnostic imaging 


  1. 1.
    Office of Technology Assessment. Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1978. NTIS order #PB-286929.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Real Decreto 63/1995, de 20 de enero, sobre Ordenación de Prestaciones Sanitarias del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Boletín Oficial del Estado, no. 35, (10-2-1995).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ley 16/2003, de 28 de mayo, de Cohesión y Calidad del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Boletín Oficial del Estado, no. 128, (29-05-2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hawkins RA, Hoh CK. PET FDG studies in oncology. Nucl Med Biol 1994;21(5):739–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Juweid ME, Cheson BD. Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 2006;354:496–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar R, Nadig MR, Chauhan A. Positron emission tomography: clinical applications in oncology. Part 1. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2005;5:1079–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Heertum RL, Greenstein EA, Tikofsky RS. 2-Deoxy-fluorglucose-positron emission tomography imaging of the brain: current clinical applications with emphasis on the dementias. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:300–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang J, Maurer L. Positron Emission Tomography: applications in drug discovery and drug development. Curr Top Med Chem 2005;5:1053–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Machac J. Cardiac positron emission tomography imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2005;35:17–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delbeke D. Oncological applications of FDG-PET imaging: brain tumors, colorectal cancer, lymphoma and melanoma. J Nucl Med 1999;40:591–603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warburg O. On the metabolism of tumors in the body. In: Warburg O, editor. London: Constable and Co. 1930. p. 75–327.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith TA. FDG uptake, tumor characteristics and response to therapy: a review. Nucl Med Commun 1998;19:97–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallagher BM, Fowler JS, Gutterson NI, MacGregor RR, Wan CN, Wolf AP. Metabolic trapping as a principle of radiopharmaceutical design: some factors responsible for the biodistribution of [18F] 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose. J Nucl Med 1978;19:1154–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bury T, Dowlati A, Paulus P, Corhay JL, Benoit T, Kayembe JM, et al. Evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule by positron emission tomography imaging. Eur Resp J 1996;9:410–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta NC, Maloof J, Gunel E. Probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules using fluorine-18-FDG and PET. J Nucl Med 1996;37:943–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mavi A, Lakhani P, Zhuang H, Gupta NC, Alavi A. Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET in characterizing solitary pulmonary nodules, assessing pleural diseases, and the initial staging, restaging, therapy planning, and monitoring response of lung cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2005;43:1–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chin R, Ward R, Keyes JW, Choplin RH, Reed JC, Wallenhaupt, et al. Mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron emission tomography. Am J Resp and Crit Care Med 1995;152:2090–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M, Hafner M, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol 1998;9(10):1117–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boni R, Boni RA, Steinert H, Burg G. Staging of metastatic melanoma by whole-body positron emission tomography using 2-fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Br J Dermatol 1995;132:556–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stokkel MP, ten Broek FW, Hordijk GJ, Koole R, van Rijk PP. Preoperative evaluation of patients with primary head and neck cancer using dual-head 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Ann Surg 2000;231(2):229–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang W, Larson SM, Fazzari M, Tickoo SK, Kolbert K, Sgouros G, et al. Prognostic value of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic scanning in patients with thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;85(3):1107–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holder WD Jr, White RL Jr, Zuger JH, Easton EJ Jr, Greene FL. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography for the detection of melanoma metastases. Ann Surg 1998;227(5):764–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Damian DL, Fulham MJ, Thompson E, Thompson JF. Positron emission tomography in the detection and management of metastatic melanoma. Melanoma Res 1996;6(4):325–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Delgado Bolton RC, Fernández Pérez C, González Maté A, Carreras Delgado JL. Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in primary tumor detection in unknown primary tumors. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1301–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rusthoven KE, Koshy M, Paulino AC. The role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cervical lymph node metastases from an unknown primary tumor. Cancer 2004;101:2641–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schiepers C, Penninckx F, De Vadder N, Mercks E, Mortelmans L, Bormans G, et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:517–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lowe VJ, Boyd JH, Dunphy FR, Kim H, Dunleavy T, Collins BT, et al. Surveillance for recurrent head and neck cancer using positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(3):651–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grunwald F, Kalicke T, Feine U, Lietzenmayer R, Scheidhauer K, Dietlein M, et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in thyroid cancer: results of a multicentre study. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26(12):1547–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Asensio C, Pérez-Castejón MJ, Maldonado A, Montz R, Ruiz JA, Santos M, et al. Papel de la FDG PET ante la duda diagnóstica de recidiva frente a necrosis en tumores cerebrales. Rev Neurol 1998;27(157):447–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lowe VJ, Boyd JH, Dunphy FR, Kim H, Dunleavy T, Collins BT, et al. Surveillance for recurrent head and neck cancer using positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(3):651–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ito K, Kato T, Ohta T, Tadokoro M. Fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent rectal cancer: relation to tumour size and cellularity. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:1372–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ricci PE, Karis JP, Heiserman JE, Fram EK, Bice AN, Drayer BP. Differentiating recurrent tumor form radiation necrosis: time for re-evaluation of positron emission tomography? Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:407–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grunwald F, Briele B, Biersack HJ. Non-131I-scintigraphy in the treatment and follow-up of thyroid cancer. Single-photon-emitters or FDG-PET? Q J Nucl Med 1999;43(3):195–206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schelling M, Avril N, Nahrig J, Kuhn W, Romer W, Sattler D, et al. Positron emission tomography using [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18(8):1689–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, Fillet G. Evaluation of therapy for lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2005;35:186–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Westerterp M, van Westreenen HL, Reitsma JB, Hoekstra OS, Stoker J, Fockens P, et al. Esophageal cancer: CT, endoscopic US, and FDG PET for assessment of response to neoadjuvant therapy—systematic review. Radiology 2005;236:841–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Protocolo de uso tutelado para la recogida de información sobre la utilización de la 18FDG-PET (Tomografía por emisión de positrones con 18F-fluorodeoxiglucosa). Documento de consenso. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS), ISCIII. Madrid, mayo de 2001.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rodríguez Garrido M, Conde Olasagasti M, González Enríquez J, Alcaide JF, Miguélez Hernández C. Informe sobre la tomografía por emisión de positrones con fluordeoxiglucosa (FDG-PET) en neurología. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo-Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS). Madrid, junio de 1999.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rodríguez Garrido M, Conde Olasagasti JL, García Comas L, Alcaide JF. Informe sobre la tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET) en oncología clínica no neurológica. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo-Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS). Madrid, octubre de 1997.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rodríguez Garrido M, Asensio del Barrio C, Gómez Martínez MV, Carreras Delgado JL, Martín Moreno JM. Tomografía por Emisión de Positrones (PET) con 18FDG en Oncología Clínica (Revisión Sistemática). Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS). Madrid: AETS - Instituto de Salud Carlos III, noviembre de 2001.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grupo SEMN. Whole body positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluordesoxyglucose. Rev Esp Med Nuclear 2002;21(2):128–30.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haberkorn U, Strauss LG, Dimitrakopoulou A, Engenhart R, Oberdorfer F, Ostertag H, et al. PET studies of fluorodeoxyglucose metabolism in patients with recurrent colorectal tumors receiving radiotherapy. J Nucl Med 1991;32:1485–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hospital Ramón y Cajal [sede Web]. Madrid: Hospital Ramón y Cajal; 2004 [acceso: 15 de mayo de 2004]. Unidad de investigación del Hospital Ramón y Cajal. Programa de meta-análisis de pruebas diagnósticas MetaDiSc. Disponible en:
  44. 44.
    Ell PJ. The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol 2006;79:32–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bastiaannet E, Oyen WJ, Meijer S, Hoekstra OS, Wobbes T, Jager PL, et al. Impact of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on surgical management of melanoma patients. Br J Surg 2006;93:243–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fanti S, Franchi R, Battista G, Monetti N, Cangini R. PET and PET-CT. State of the art and future prospects. Radiol Med 2005;110:1–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fryback DG, Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Mak 1991;11:88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel Rodríguez-Garrido
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristina Asensio-del-Barrio
    • 1
  1. 1.Agency for Health Technology Assessment. “Carlos III” Health InstituteMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations