Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 442–451 | Cite as

The clinical value of F-18 FDG PET/CT in differentiating malignant from benign lesions in pneumoconiosis patients

  • Eun Kyoung Choi
  • Hye Lim Park
  • Ie Ryung YooEmail author
  • Seung Joon Kim
  • Young Kyoon Kim
Nuclear Medicine
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

We reviewed PET/CT findings of pneumoconiosis and determined the ability of PET/CT to differentiate lung cancer from progressive massive fibrosis (PMF), and metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) from underlying reactive LN hyperplasia.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with pneumoconiosis and suspected lung cancer. Maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), long- and short-axis diameters (DL and DS), ratio of DL to DS (DL/S), and Hounsfield unit (HU) from the lung mass and mediastinal LNs were measured. The cutoff values of each parameter were obtained by ROC analysis, and we evaluated the diagnostic sensitivity.

Results

Forty-nine pneumoconiosis patients were included. Eighty-three lung masses were detected, of which 42 were confirmed as lung cancer (23 squamous cell carcinomas, 12 adenocarcinomas, and 7 small cell carcinomas) and 41 were PMF. There were significant differences between lung cancer and PMF in terms of SUVmax, DS, DL/S, and HU (all p < 0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of lung cancer were 81.0%, 73.2%, and 77.1%, respectively, with an SUVmax cutoff value of 7.4; and 92.8%, 87.8%, and 90.4%, respectively, with a HU cutoff value of 45.5. Among the 40 LNs with available pathological results, 7 were metastatic. Metastatic LNs showed higher SUVmax, larger DS, and lower HU than benign lesions (all p < 0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for predicting metastatic LNs by PET/CT were 85.7%, 93.9%, and 92.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

By applying PET and CT parameters in combination, the accuracy for differentiating malignant from benign lesions could be increased. PET/CT can play a central role in the discrimination of lung cancer and PMF.

Key Points

• Lung cancer showed significantly higher SUVmax than PMF.

• Lung cancer showed similar D L but longer D S , resulting in a smaller D L/S than PMF.

• SUVmax demonstrated additive value in differentiating lung cancer from PMF, compared with HU alone.

Keywords

Pneumoconiosis Lung neoplasms Positron emission tomography–computed tomography Computed tomography, X-ray 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

DL

Long-axis diameter

DL/S

Ratio of long- to short-axis diameter

DS

Short-axis diameter

FDG

Fluorodeoxyglucose

HU

Hounsfield unit

LN

Lymph node

NPV

Negative predictive value

PET

Positron emission tomography

PMF

Progressive massive fibrosis

PPV

Positive predictive value

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

SUVmax

Maximum standardized uptake value

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ie Ryung Yoo.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2019_6342_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 28.8 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Choi BS, Park SY, Lee JO (2010) Current status of pneumoconiosis patients in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 25:S13–S19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Choi BS (1996) Development of coalworkers’ pneumoconiosis in Korea: risk factors and incidence density. Korean J Occup Environ Med 8:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jun JS, Jung JI, Kim HR et al (2013) Complications of pneumoconiosis: radiologic overview. Eur J Radiol 82:1819–1830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garg K, Lynch DA (2002) Imaging of thoracic occupational and environmental malignancies. J Thorac Imaging 17:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leung CC, Yu IT, Chen W (2012) Silicosis. Lancet 379:2008–2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chong S, Lee KS, Chung MJ, Han J, Kwon OJ, Kim TS (2006) Pneumoconiosis: comparison of imaging and pathologic findings. Radiographics 26:59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK (2001) Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 285:914–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weber WA (2006) Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 24:3282–3292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hurbánková M, Kaiglová A (1993) The changes of some immunological parameters in subjects exposed to asbestos in dependence on age, duration of exposure, radiological findings and smoking habits. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 195:55–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madsen PH, Holdgaard PC, Christensen JB, Hoilund-Carlsen PF (2016) Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET-CT in the initial evaluation of lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:2084–2097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sachpekidis C, Thieke C, Askoxylakis V et al (2015) Combined use of (18)F-FDG and (18)F-FMISO in unresectable non-small cell lung cancer patients planned for radiotherapy: a dynamic PET/CT study. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 5:127–142PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamamoto Y, Nishiyama Y, Ishikawa S et al (2007) Correlation of 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG uptake on PET with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1610–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaira K, Oriuchi N, Shimizu K et al (2009) 18F-FMT uptake seen within primary cancer on PET helps predict outcome of non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 50:1770–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reichert M, Bensadoun ES (2009) PET imaging in patients with coal workers pneumoconiosis and suspected malignancy. J Thorac Oncol 4:649–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu H, Zhang H, Wang Y, Cui X, Han J (2013) Detection of lung cancer in patients with pneumoconiosis by fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography: four cases. Clin Imaging 37:769–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saydam O, Gokce M, Kilicgun A, Tanriverdi O (2012) Accuracy of positron emission tomography in mediastinal node assessment in coal workers with lung cancer. Med Oncol 29:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee JW, Kim EY, Kim DJ et al (2016) The diagnostic ability of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for mediastinal lymph node staging using (18)F-FDG uptake and volumetric CT histogram analysis in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur Radiol 26:4515–4523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rusch VW, Asamura H, Watanabe H, Giroux DJ, Rami-Porta R, Goldstraw P (2009) The IASLC lung cancer staging project: a proposal for a new international lymph node map in the forthcoming seventh edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 4:568–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee JW, Kim BS, Lee DS et al (2009) 18F-FDG PET/CT in mediastinal lymph node staging of non-small-cell lung cancer in a tuberculosis-endemic country: consideration of lymph node calcification and distribution pattern to improve specificity. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36:1794–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanegae K, Nakano I, Kimura K et al (2007) Comparison of MET-PET and FDG-PET for differentiation between benign lesions and lung cancer in pneumoconiosis. Ann Nucl Med 21:331–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chung SY, Lee JH, Kim TH, Kim SJ, Kim HJ, Ryu YH (2010) 18F-FDG PET imaging of progressive massive fibrosis. Ann Nucl Med 24:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bergin CJ, Müller NL, Vedal S, Chan-Yeung M (1986) CT in silicosis: correlation with plain films and pulmonary function tests. AJR Am J Roentgenol 146:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lapp NL, Parker JE (1992) Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Clin Chest Med 13:243–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alavi A, Gupta N, Alberini JL et al (2002) Positron emission tomography imaging in nonmalignant thoracic disorders. Semin Nucl Med 32:293–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kavanagh PV, Stevenson AW, Chen MY, Clark PB (2004) Nonneoplastic diseases in the chest showing increased activity on FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1133–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Robertson DD Jr, Huang HK (1986) Quantitative bone measurements using x-ray computed tomography with second-order correction. Med Phys 13:474–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eun Kyoung Choi
    • 1
  • Hye Lim Park
    • 2
  • Ie Ryung Yoo
    • 3
    Email author
  • Seung Joon Kim
    • 4
  • Young Kyoon Kim
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyIncheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyEunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologySeoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Division of Pulmonology, Department of Internal MedicineSeoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations