Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 443–451 | Cite as

High Impact of 18F-FDG-PET on Management and Prognostic Stratification of Newly Diagnosed Small Cell Lung Cancer

  • Arun Azad
  • Fiona Chionh
  • Andrew M. Scott
  • Szeting T. Lee
  • Sam U. Berlangieri
  • Shane White
  • Paul L. Mitchell
Research Article



We evaluated whether 18F-FDG-PET altered stage classification, management, and prognostic stratification of newly diagnosed small cell lung cancer (SCLC).


We identified 46 consecutive patients undergoing staging positron emission tomography for SCLC from 1993–2008 inclusive. Updated survival data from the state Cancer Registry was available on 42 of 46 patients.


PET altered stage classification in 12 of 46 (26%) patients. PET altered treatment modality in nine patients, and the target mediastinal radiation field in another three patients. Therefore, PET altered management in 12 of 46 (26%) patients. Patients with limited disease (LD) on pre-PET staging had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those upstaged to extensive disease (ED; median 18.6 months versus 5.7 months; log-rank p < 0.0001). In patients with ED on pre-PET staging, those downstaged to LD by PET had significantly longer OS than those with ED on PET (median 10.9 months versus 5.9 months; log-rank p = 0.037).


PET had a major impact on stage classification, management, and prognostic stratification of newly diagnosed SCLC.

Key words

FDG-PET Small cell lung cancer Lung cancer staging Lung cancer PET 


  1. 1.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and Australasian Association of Cancer Registries (AACR; 2007) Cancer in Australia: an overview, 2006. Cancer series no. 37. Cat. no. CAN 32. Canberra: AIHW)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Govindan R, Page N, Morgensztern D et al (2006) Changing epidemiology of small-cell lung cancer in the United States over the last 30 years: analysis of the surveillance, epidemiologic, and end results database. J Clin Oncol 24:4539–4544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lally BE, Urbanic JJ, Blackstock AW, Miller AA, Perry MC (2007) Small cell lung cancer: have we made any progress over the last 25 years? Oncologist 12:1096–1104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum R, MacManus MP, Rischin D, Michael M, Ball D, Hicks RJ (2004) Impact of positron emission tomography on the management of patients with small-cell lung cancer: preliminary experience. Am J Clin Oncol 27:164–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Warde P, Payne D (1992) Does thoracic irradiation improve survival and local control in limited-stage small-cell carcinoma of the lung? A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 10:890–895PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pignon JP, Arriagada R, Ihde DC et al (1992) A meta-analysis of thoracic radiotherapy for small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 327:1618–1624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takada M, Fukuoka M, Kawahara M et al (2002) Phase III study of concurrent versus sequential thoracic radiotherapy in combination with cisplatin and etoposide for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: results of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study 9104. J Clin Oncol 20:3054–3060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murray N, Coy P, Pater JL et al (1993) Importance of timing for thoracic irradiation in the combined modality treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 11:336–344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turrisi AT 3rd, Kim K, Blum R et al (1999) Twice-daily compared with once-daily thoracic radiotherapy in limited small-cell lung cancer treated concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide. N Engl J Med 340:265–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon M, Argiris A, Murren JR (2004) Progress in the therapy of small cell lung cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 49:119–133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bradley JD, Dehdashti F, Mintun MA, Govindan R, Trinkaus K, Siegel BA (2004) Positron emission tomography in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 22:3248–3254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer BM, Mortensen J, Langer SW et al (2007) A prospective study of PET/CT in initial staging of small-cell lung cancer: comparison with CT, bone scintigraphy and bone marrow analysis. Ann Oncol 18:338–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vinjamuri M, Craig M, Campbell-Fontaine A, Almubarak M, Gupta N, Rogers JS (2008) Can positron emission tomography be used as a staging tool for small-cell lung cancer? Clin Lung Cancer 9:30–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brink I, Schumacher T, Mix M et al (2004) Impact of [18F]FDG-PET on the primary staging of small-cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:1614–1620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schumacher T, Brink I, Mix M et al (2001) FDG-PET imaging for the staging and follow-up of small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 28:483–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kut V, Spies W, Spies S, Gooding W, Argiris A (2007) Staging and monitoring of small cell lung cancer using [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). Am J Clin Oncol 30:45–50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shen YY, Shiau YC, Wang JJ, Ho ST, Kao CH (2002) Whole-body 18F-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in primary staging small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 22:1257–1264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kamel EM, Zwahlen D, Wyss MT, Stumpe KD, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC (2003) Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET improves the management of patients with small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 44:1911–1917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Kelley B et al (2008) PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med 49:1451–1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Munley MT, Marks LB, Scarfone C et al (1999) Multimodality nuclear medicine imaging in three-dimensional radiation treatment planning for lung cancer: challenges and prospects. Lung Cancer 23:105–114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Loon J, Offermann C, Bosmans G et al (2008) 18FDG-PET based radiation planning of mediastinal lymph nodes in limited disease small cell lung cancer changes radiotherapy fields: a planning study. Radiother Oncol 87:49–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Demos JM, Mukesh B (2008) Prognostic significance of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose - positron emission tomography after treatment in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer. Clin Med Res 6:72–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pandit N, Gonen M, Krug L, Larson SM (2003) Prognostic value of [18F]FDG-PET imaging in small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:78–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Molecular Imaging 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arun Azad
    • 1
  • Fiona Chionh
    • 1
  • Andrew M. Scott
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Szeting T. Lee
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Sam U. Berlangieri
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shane White
    • 1
    • 3
  • Paul L. Mitchell
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Ludwig Institute Oncology Unit, Austin HealthHeidelbergAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Positron Emission Tomography, Austin HealthMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of MedicineUniversity of Melbourne, Austin HealthMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Austin HealthHeidelbergAustralia

Personalised recommendations