Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 9, Issue 8, pp 494–505

PET-CT in clinical oncology

  • A. Maldonado
  • F. J. González-Alenda
  • M. Alonso
  • J. M. Sierra
Educational Series Red Series

Abstract

Anatomic imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have been used for many years in clinical oncology. The emergence of positron emission tomography (PET) more than a decade ago was a major breakthrough in the early diagnosis of malignant lesions, as it was based on tumour metabolism and not on anatomy. The merger of both techniques into one thanks to PETCT cameras has made this technology the most important tool in the management of cancer patients. PET/CT with 18F-FDG is increasingly being used for staging, restaging and treatment monitoring for cancer patients with different types of tumours (lung, breast, colorectal, lymphoma, melanoma, head and neck etc.). At many institutions, PET/CT has replaced separately acquired PET and CT examinations for many oncologic indications. This replacement has occurred despite the fact that only a relatively small number of well designed prospective studies have verified imaging findings against the gold standard of histopathologic tissue evaluation. However, a large number of studies have used acceptable reference standards, such as pathology, imaging and other clinical follow-up findings, for validating PET/CT findings. The impact on the management of patients and the benefits from the information obtained from this anatomo-metabolic procedure justify the term “clinical oncology based on PET-CT” as a new concept to be applied in clinical practice.

Key words

Cancer PET-CT FDG Diagnosis Metabolism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Townsend DW (2001) A combined PET/CT scanner: the choices. J Nucl Med 42:533–534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czernin J, Dahlbom M, Ratib O et al (2004) Introduction. In: Czernin J, Dahlbom M, Ratib O, Schiepers C (eds) Atlas of PET/CT imaging in oncology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodríguez M, Asensio C, Maldonado A et al (2004) PET-TAC: Indicaciones, revisión sistemática y meta-análisis. Informe de la Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias No 41. Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Madrid, JuneGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andradas E, Reza M, Gómez N et al (2004) Efectividad, seguridad e indicaciones del sistema híbrido PET/TAC. Informe Técnico IT01/2004. Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. Agencia Laín Entralgo. OctoberGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodríguez M, Asensio C (2005) Uso Tutelado de la PET con FDG. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (AETS). Madrid, November. ISBN: 84-95463-30-XGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA, Wahl RL (2003) “USA-Fat”: prevalence is related to ambient outdoor temperature — evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 44:1267–1270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmer L, Snyderman CH, Fukui M et al (2005) The use of combined PET/CT for localizing recurrent head and neck cancer: the Pittsburgh experience. Ear Nose Throat J 84:108–110Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Branstetter BF IV, Blodgett TM, Zimmer LA et al (2005) Head and neck malignancy: is PET/CT more accurate than PET or CT alone? Radiology 235:580–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schöder H, Yeung HWD, Gonen M et al (2004) Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 231:65–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordin A, Daitzchman M, Doweck I et al (2006) Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in patients with carcinoma of the larynx: diagnostic accuracy and impact on clinical management. Laryngoscope 116:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schoder H, Carlson DL, Kraus DH et al (2006) 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting nodal metastases in patients with oral cancer staged N0 by clinical examination and CT/MRI. J Nucl Med 47:755–762PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen Y, Su C, Ding H et al (2006) Clinical usefulness of fused PET/CT compared with PET alone or CT alone in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Anticancer Res 26:1471–1477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nahas Z, Goldenberg D, Fakhry C et al (2005) The role of positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of recurrent papillary thyroid carcinoma. Laryngoscope 115:237–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palmedo H, Bucerius J, Joe A et al (2006) Integrated PET/CT in differentiated thyroid cancer: diagnostic accuracy and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med 47:616–624PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG et al (2001) Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 285:914–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petkovska I, Shah SK, McNitt-Gray MF et al (2006) Pulmonary nodule characterization: a comparison of conventional with quantitative and visual semi-quantitative analyses using contrast enhancement maps. Eur J Radiol 59:244–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yi CA, Lee KS, Kim B-T et al (2006) Tissue characterization of solitary pulmonary nodule: comparative study between helical dynamic CT and integrated PET/CT. J Nucl Med 47:443–450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McKenna R, Libshitz H, Mountain C, McMurtey M (1985) Roentgenographic evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes for pre-operative assessment in lung cancer. Chest 88:206–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dwamena B, Sonnad S, Angobaldo J, Wahl R (1999) Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: mediastinal staging in the 1990s — meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT. Radiology 213:530–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany T et al (2003) Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 348:2500–2507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat A et al (2003) Nonsmall cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 229:526–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Halpern BS, Schiepers C, Weber WA et al (2005) Presurgical staging of non-small cell lung cancer: positron emission tomography, integrated positron emission tomography/CT, and software image fusion. Chest 128:2289–2297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shim SS, Lee KS, Kim B-T et al (2005) Nonsmall cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of integrated FDG PET/CT and CT alone for preoperative staging. Radiology 236:1011–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keidar Z, Haim N, Guralnik L et al (2004) PET/CT using 18F-FDG in suspected lung cancer recurrence: diagnostic value and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med 45:1640–1646PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Roudas M et al (2005) Etiology of solitary extrapulmonary positron emission tomography and computed tomography findings in patients with lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:6846–6853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoekstra CJ, Stroobants SG, Smit EF et al (2005) Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8362–8370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Leyn P, Stroobants S, De Wever W et al (2006) Prospective comparative study of integrated positron emission tomography-computed tomography scan compared with remediastinoscopy in the assessment of residual mediastinal lymph node disease after induction chemotherapy for mediastinoscopy-proven stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: a Leuven Lung Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol 24: 3333–3339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pottgen C, Levegrun S, Theegarten D et al (2006) Value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucosepositron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 12:97–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cerfolio RJ, Bryant AS, Ojha B (2006) Restaging patients with N2 (stage IIIa) nonsmall cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:1229–1235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fueger B, Weber W, Quon A et al (2005) Performance of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-dglucose positron emission tomography and integrated PET/CT in restaged breast cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 7:369–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA et al (2006) Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:254–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bar-Shalom R, Guralnik L, Tsalic M et al (2005) The additional value of PET/CT over PET in FDG imaging of oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:918–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yuan S, Yu Y, Chao KSC et al (2006) Additional value of PET/CT over PET in assessment of locoregional lymph nodes in thoracic esophageal squamous cell cancer. J Nucl Med 47:1255–1259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jadvar H, Henderson RW, Conti PS (2006) 2-Deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging evaluation of esophageal cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 8:193–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl R (2003) Direct comparison of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44:1797–1803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kamel IR, Cohade C, Neyman E et al (2004) Incremental value of CT in PET/CT of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 29:663–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim JH, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS et al (2005) Comparison between 18F-FDG PET, inline PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 46:587–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Votrubova J, Belohlavek O, Jaruskova M et al (2006) The role of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:779–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H et al (2004) Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 232:815–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P et al (2004) Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 240: 1027–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Imdahl A, Nitzsche E, Krautmann F et al (1999) Evaluation of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose for the differentiation of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 86:194–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Heinrich S, Goerres GW, Schafer M et al (2005) Positron emission tomography/ computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness. Ann Surg 242:235–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Petrowsky H, Wildbrett P, Husarik DB et al (2006) Impact of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography on staging and management of gallbladder cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol 45:43–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stroobants S, Goeminne J, Seegers M et al (2003) 18FDG-positron emission tomography for the early prediction of response in advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with imatinib mesylate (Glivec). Eur J Cancer 39:2012–2020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goerres GW, Stupp R, Barghouth G et al (2005) The value of PET, CT and in-line PET/CT in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours: longterm outcome of treatment with imatinib mesylate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:153–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S et al (2004) Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med 45:357–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Allen-Auerbach M, Quon A, Weber WA et al (2004) Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 6:411–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schatt P et al (2004) FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31:325–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C et al (2004) Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging — do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology 232:823–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y et al (2005) Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology 237:1038–1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schaefer NG, Strobel K, Taverna C, Hany TF (2007) Bone involvement in patients with lymphoma: the role of FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:60–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sironi S, Buda A, Picchio M et al (2005) Lymph node metastasis in patients with clinical earlystage cervical cancer: detection with integrated FDG PET/CT. Radiology 238:272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hauth E, Antoch G, Stattaus J et al (2005) Evaluation of integrated whole-body PET/ CT in the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Eur J Radiol 56:263–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G et al (2004) Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology 233:433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Scher B, Seitz M, Reiser M et al (2005) 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of penile cancer. J Nucl Med 46:1460–1465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Reinhardt MJ, Joe AY, Jaeger U et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of whole body dual modality 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for N-and M-staging of malignant melanoma: experience with 250 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol 24: 1178–1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gutzeit A, Antoch G, Kuhl H et al (2005) Unknown primary tumors: detection with dualmodality PET/CT — initial experience. Radiology 234:227–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nanni C, Rubello D, Castellucci P et al (2005) Role of FDG PET/CT imaging for the detection of an unknown primary tumor: preliminary results in 21 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:589–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Iagaru A, Chawla S, Menendez L, Conti P (2006) 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT for detection of pulmonary metastases from musculoskeletal sarcomas. Nucl Med Commun 27:795–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Feseo 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Maldonado
    • 1
  • F. J. González-Alenda
    • 1
  • M. Alonso
    • 2
  • J. M. Sierra
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro PET Recoletas La MilagrosaMadridSpain
  2. 2.Centro PET RecoletasValladolidSpain
  3. 3.Grupo RecoletasMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations