Annals of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 777–786

Additional value of FDG-PET to contrast enhanced-computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph node metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer: a Japanese multicenter clinical study

  • Kazuo Kubota
  • Koji Murakami
  • Tomio Inoue
  • Harumi Itoh
  • Tsuneo Saga
  • Susumu Shiomi
  • Jun Hatazawa
Original article

Abstract

Objective

This study was a controlled multicenter clinical study to verify the diagnostic effects of additional FDG-PET to contrast-enhanced CT for mediastinal lymph node metastasis in patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

NSCLC patients with enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes (short diameter, 7–20 mm), confirmed using contrast-enhanced CT, were examined using FDG-PET to detect metastases prior to surgery. The primary endpoint was the accuracy for concomitantly used CT and FDG-PET showing the additional effects of FDG, compared with CT alone. The secondary endpoints were the clinical impact of FDG-PET on therapeutic decisions and adverse reaction from FDG administration. The images were interpreted by investigators at each institution. Moreover, blinded readings were performed by an image interpretation committee independent of the institutions. The gold standard was the pathological diagnosis determined by surgery or biopsy after PET, and patients in whom a pathological diagnosis was not obtained were excluded from the analysis.

Results

Among 99 subjects, the results for 81 subjects eligible for analysis showed that the accuracy improved from 69.1% (56/81) for CT alone to 75.3% (61/81) for CT + PET (p = 0.404). These findings contributed to treatment decisions in 63.0% (51/81) of the cases, mainly with regard to the selection of the operative procedure. The results of the image interpretation committee showed that the accuracy improved from 64.2% (52/81) (95% CI 52.8–74.6) for CT to 75.3% (61/81) (95% CI 64.5–84.2) for CT + PET. The accuracy for 106 mediastinal lymph nodes improved significantly from 62.3% (66/106) (95% CI 52.3–71.5) for CT to 79.2% (84/106) (95% CI 70.3–86.5) for CT + PET (p < 0.05). We found that no serious adverse drug reactions appeared in any of the 99 patients who received FDG, except for transient mild outliers in the laboratory data for two patients.

Conclusions

The addition of FDG-PET to contrast-enhanced CT imaging for the staging of NSCLC improved the diagnostic accuracy for mediastinal lymph node metastasis. FDG-PET improved the precision of the staging of NSCLC and contributed to the surgical decisions.

Keywords

Mediastinal lymphnode Lymphnode metastasis Non-small cell lung cancer FDG-PET CT 

References

  1. 1.
    McLoud TC, Bourgouin PM, Greenberg RW, Kosiuk JP, Templeton PA, Shepard JA, et al. Bronchogenic carcinoma: analysis of staging in the mediastinum with CT by correlative lymph node mapping and sampling. Radiology. 1992;182:319–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dales RE, Stark RM, Raman S. Computed tomography to stage lung cancer. Approaching a controversy using meta-analysis. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1990;141:1096–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bogot NR, Shaham D. Semi-invasive and invasive procedures for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. II. Bronchoscopic and surgical procedures. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:535–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The American Thoracic Society and The European Respiratory Society. Pretreatment evaluation of non-small-cell lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;156:320–32.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chin R Jr, Ward R, Keyes JW, Choplin RH, Reed JC, Wallenhaupt S, et al. Mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron emission tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:2090–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patz EF Jr, Lowe VJ, Goodman PC, Herndon J. Thoracic nodal staging with PET imaging with 18FDG in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma. Chest. 1995;108:1617–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scott WJ, Gobar LS, Terry JD, Dewan NA, Sunderland JJ. Mediastinal lymph node staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective comparison of computed tomography and positron emission tomography. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111:642–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steinert HC, Hauser M, Allemann F, Engel H, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: nodal staging with FDG PET versus CT with correlative lymph node mapping and sampling. Radiology. 1997;202:441–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, Verschakelen JA, Nackaerts KL, et al. Mediastinal lymph node staging with FDG-PET scan in patients with potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective analysis of 50 cases. Leuven Lung Cancer Group. Chest. 1997;112:1480–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guhlmann A, Storck M, Kotzerke J, Moog F, Sunder-Plassmann L, Reske SN. Lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: evaluation by [18F]FDG positron emission tomography (PET). Thorax. 1997;52:438–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Albes JM, Lietzenmayer R, Schott U, Schülen E, Wehrmann M, Ziemer G. Improvement of non-small-cell lung cancer staging by means of positron emission tomography. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;47:42–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta NC, Graeber GM, Rogers JS 2nd, Bishop HA. Comparative efficacy of positron emission tomography with FDG and computed tomographic scanning in preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Surg. 1999;229:286–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weng E, Tran L, Rege S, Safa A, Sadeghi A, Juillard G, et al. Accuracy and clinical impact of mediastinal lymph node staging with FDG-PET imaging in potentially resectable lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2000;23:47–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Standard of compounds labeled with positron nuclides approved as established techniques for medical use (by Subcommittee on Medical Application of Cyclotron-Produced Radionuclides), 1999 revision. Radioisotopes. 1999;48(12):i-xxviGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, Mooyaart EL, Vaalburg W, Koëter GH, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:254–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gould MK, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Maclean CC, Demas AN, Shigemitsu H, et al. Test performance of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for mediastinal staging in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:879–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alongi F, Ragusa P, Montemaggi P, Bona CM. Combining independent studies of diagnostic fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography and computed tomography in mediastinal lymph node staging for non-small cell lung cancer. Tumori. 2006;92:327–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang W, Fu Z, Yu J, Yuan S, Zhang B, Li D, et al. Value of PET/CT versus enhanced CT for locoregional lymph nodes in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2008;61:35–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tasci E, Tezel C, Orki A, Akin O, Falay O, Kutlu CA. The role of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography in the assessment of nodal spread in cases with non-small cell lung cancer. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10:200–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Baardwijk A, Bosmans G, Boersma L, Buijsen J, Wanders S, Hochstenbag M, et al. PET–CT-based auto-contouring in non-small-cell lung cancer correlates with pathology and reduces interobserver variability in the delineation of the primary tumor and involved nodal volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:771–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hofman MS, Smeeton NC, Rankin SC, Nunan T, O’Doherty MJ. Observer variation in FDG PET–CT for staging of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;36:194–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    FDA guidance for industry developing medical imaging drugs and biological products. Part 3: design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical studies. 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Guidelines on clinical evaluation of radioactive diagnostics. Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reed CE, Harpole DH, Posther KE, Woolson SL, Downey RJ, Meyers BF, et al. Results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0050 trial: the utility of positron emission tomography in staging potentially operable non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:1943–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Herder GJ, Kramer H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, Pruim J, van Tinteren H, et al. Traditional versus up-front [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch cooperative randomized study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;20:1800–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bernasconi M, Chhajed PN, Gambazzi F, Bubendorf L, Rasch H, Kneifel S, et al. Combined transbronchial needle aspiration and positron emission tomography for mediastinal staging of NSCLC. Eur Respir J. 2006;27:889–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Subedi N, Scarsbrook A, Darby M, Korde K, Mc Shane P, Muers MF. The clinical impact of integrated FDG PET–CT on management decisions in patients with lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2009;64:301–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maziak DE, Darling GE, Inculet RI, Gulenchyn KY, Driedger AA, Ung YC, et al. Positron emission tomography in staging early lung cancer. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:221–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, Larsen S, Loft A, Bertelsen A, et al. Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET–CT. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:32–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuo Kubota
    • 1
  • Koji Murakami
    • 2
  • Tomio Inoue
    • 3
  • Harumi Itoh
    • 4
  • Tsuneo Saga
    • 5
  • Susumu Shiomi
    • 6
  • Jun Hatazawa
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyNational Center for Global Health and MedicineTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Nuclear Medicine Department of Radiology, School of MedicineKeio UniversityTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyGraduate School of Medicine Yokohama City UniversityYokohamaJapan
  4. 4.University of FukuiFukuiJapan
  5. 5.Molecular Imaging CenterNational Institute of Radiological SciencesChibaJapan
  6. 6.Department of Nuclear MedicineOsaka City University Graduate School of MedicineOsakaJapan
  7. 7.Department of Nuclear Medicine and Tracer KineticsOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations