Advertisement

Suboptimal Sensitivity and Specificity of PET and Other Gross Imaging Techniques in Assessing Lymph Node Metastasis

  • Abass AlaviEmail author
  • Sean D. Carlin
  • Thomas J. Werner
  • Abdullah Al-Zaghal
Commentary
  • 32 Downloads

In recent years, we have emphasized the limitations of positron emission tomography (PET) in imaging disorders that are beyond the capability of current instruments and available radiotracers [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. These include imaging islets, bacteria, plaques and tangles, and atherosclerotic plaques. The spatial resolution of PET has substantially improved over the past decade, and therefore, high-quality images can be generated, particularly with specialized instruments for brain and animal studies. However, when the spatial resolution of PET instruments that are designed to image the entire body compared to that of dedicated brain scanners, it becomes quite evident that image quality deteriorates substantially due to large field of view and volume of the structures assessed. In other words, specially designed PET scanners for the brain (and possibly other small organs such as the breast) can provide images with spatial resolutions at around 4–5 mm that are similar to that of phantom...

Key words

Malignancy Cancer Lymph node metastasis PET Limitations Staging 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheng G, Werner TJ, Newberg A, Alavi A (2016) Failed PET application attempts in the past, can we avoid them in the future? Mol Imaging Biol 18:797–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alavi A, Werner TJ (2017) FDG-PET imaging to detect and characterize infectious disorders; an unavoidable path for the foreseeable future. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:417–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alavi A, Werner TJ, Hoilund-Carlsen PF (2017) What can be and what cannot be accomplished with PET: rectifying ongoing misconceptions. Clin Nucl Med 42:603–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alavi A, Werner TJ, Hoilund-Carlsen PF (2017) What can be and what cannot be accomplished with PET to detect and characterize atherosclerotic plaques. J Nucl Cardiol 25:2012–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alavi A, Werner TJ (2018) Futility of attempts to detect and quantify beta cells by PET imaging in the pancreas: why it is time to abandon the approach. Diabetologia 61:2512–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hess S, Alavi A, Werner T, Hoilund-Carlsen PF (2018) Molecular imaging of bacteria in patients is an attractive fata morgana, not a realistic option. J Nucl Med 59:716–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braem A, Llatas MC, Chesi E et al (2004) Feasibility of a novel design of high resolution parallax-free Compton enhanced PET scanner dedicated to brain research. Phys Med Biol 49:2547–2562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zaidi H, Thompson C (2009) Evolution and developments in instrumentation for positron emission mammography. PET Clin 4:317–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daube-Witherspoon ME, Surti S, Perkins AE, Karp JS (2014) Determination of accuracy and precision of lesion uptake measurements in human subjects with time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med 55:602–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Houseni M, Chamroonrat W, Basu S et al (2009) Usefulness of non attenuation corrected 18F-FDG-PET images for optimal assessment of disease activity in patients with lymphoma. Hell J Nucl Med 12:5–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Czerniecki BJ, Bedrosian I, Faries M, Alavi A (2001) Revolutionary impact of lymphoscintigraphy and intraoperative sentinel node mapping in the clinical practice of oncology. Semin Nucl Med 31:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng G, Kurita S, Torigian DA, Alavi A (2011) Current status of sentinel lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:562–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kwee TC, Basu S, Torigian DA, Saboury B, Alavi A (2011) Defining the role of modern imaging techniques in assessing lymph nodes for metastasis in cancer: evolving contribution of PET in this setting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:1353–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rischpler C, Beck TI, Okamoto S, Schlitter AM, Knorr K, Schwaiger M, Gschwend J, Maurer T, Meyer PT, Eiber M (2018) 68Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC uptake in cervical, celiac, and sacral ganglia as an important pitfall in prostate cancer PET imaging. J Nucl Med 59:1406–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fuster D, Chiang S, Johnson G, Schuchter LM, Zhuang H, Alavi A (2004) Is 18F-FDG PET more accurate than standard diagnostic procedures in the detection of suspected recurrent melanoma? J Nucl Med 45:1323–1327Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Houshmand S, Salavati A, Segtnan EA, Grupe P, Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Alavi A (2016) Dual-time-point imaging and delayed-time-point fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/computed tomography imaging in various clinical settings. PET Clin 11:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations