Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 593–599

Evaluation of FDG uptake in pulmonary hila with FDG PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT in patients with thoracic and non-thoracic tumors

  • Gonca Kara Gedik
  • Pelin Ozcan Kara
  • Taylan Kara
  • Oktay Sari
  • Fatih Kara
Original Article
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake is frequently observed in lung hilus. This finding causes difficulties during the interpretation. Our objective was to evaluate the features of FDG uptake in lung hilus associated with benign or malignant etiology in patients with thoracic and non-thoracic tumors.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the files of 1172 patients who had undergone FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) examination between January 2008 and June 2009. Forty-eight patients (21 males, 27 females, age range 12–80 years, mean 60.9 ± 15.82 years) with either unilateral or bilateral hilar FDG uptake and who had thorax contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) performed within 1 month of the FDG PET/CT scan were enrolled in the study. Characteristics of FDG uptake were classified according to the pathology and CECT or PET/CT follow-up over 12 months.

Results

The characteristics of 71 hilar regions with FDG uptake could be classified. In 30 of 71 (42.3%) hilar regions, FDG uptake was considered to be physiological because no lymph node was observed on CECT. In 19 of 71 (26.8%), FDG uptake was secondary to benign lymph nodes and in 22 (30.9%) to malignant lymph nodes. Significant differences were observed between benign and malignant lymph nodes for SUVhilus and SUVhilus/SUVliver ratio. Using 4.49 as the cut-off value for SUVhilus, a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 86.4% were achieved (area under curve, AUC: 0.956). For SUVhilus/SUVliver ratio, sensitivity and specificity to detect malignant lymph nodes were 77.6 and 77.3% (AUC: 0.885), respectively, at a cut-off value of 1.75.

Conclusion

SUVhilus and SUVhilus/SUVliver ratio were found to be significant parameters for determining malignancy in lung hilus. Combined interpretation with CECT is warranted during the evaluation of lung hilus with FDG PET/CT.

Keywords

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography FDG Lung hilus Lymph node Positron emission tomography 

References

  1. 1.
    Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, Dupont PJ, De Leyn PR, De Wever WF, Verbeken EK, et al. FDG-PET scan in potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: do anatometabolic PET-CT fusion images improve the localisation of regional lymph node metastases? The Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25:1495–501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karam M, Roberts-Klein S, Shet N, Chang J, Feustel P. Bilateral hilar foci on 18F-FDG PET scan in patients without lung cancer: variables associated with benign and malignant etiology. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1429–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hany TF, Steinert HS, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology. 2002;225:575–881.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lynch TB. Normal uptake and normal variant uptake. In: Lynch TB, editor. PET/CT in clinical practice. London: Springer; 2007. p. 171–203.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang WJ, Chung JK, So Y, Jeong JM, Lee DS, Lee MC. Differentiation of mediastinal FDG uptake observed in patients with non-thoracic tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:202–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tournoy KG, Maddens S, Gosselin R, Van Maele G, van Meerbeeck JP, Kelles A. Integrated FDG-PET/CT does not make invasive staging of the intrathoracic lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer redundant: a prospective study. Thorax. 2007;62:696–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, Bogaert J, Maes A, et al. Lymph node staging in non-small cell cancer with FDG-PET scan: a prospective study on 690 lymph node stations from 68 patients. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2142–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bryant AS, Cerfolio RJ, Klemm KM, Ojha B. Maximum standard uptake value of mediastinal lymph nodes on integrated FDG-PET–CT predicts pathology in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:417–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hain SF, Curran KM, Beggs AD, Fogelman I, O’Doherty MJ, Maisey MN. FDG-PET as a “metabolic biopsy” tool in thoracic lesions with indeterminate biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28:1336–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paquet N, Albert A, Foidart J, Hustinx R. Within-patient variability of 18F-FDG: standardized uptake values in normal tissues. J Nucl Med. 2004;45:784–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ko JP, Ponzo F, Vlahos I, Kramer EL. Diseases of the lung and pleura: FDG PET/CT. In: Kramer EL, Ko JP, Ponzo F, Mourtzikos K, editors. Positron emission tomography computed tomography. A disease-oriented approach. New York: Informa Healthcare USA, Inc.; 2008. p. 127–227.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gonca Kara Gedik
    • 1
  • Pelin Ozcan Kara
    • 1
  • Taylan Kara
    • 2
  • Oktay Sari
    • 3
  • Fatih Kara
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Selcuklu Medical FacultySelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyBeyhekim State HospitalKonyaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Meram Medical FacultySelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Public Health, Selcuklu Medical FacultySelcuk UniversityKonyaTurkey

Personalised recommendations