Advertisement

Clinical value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in suspected serious disease with special emphasis on occult cancer

  • Kamilla Bredlund Caspersen
  • Nikoletta Giannoutsou
  • Oke Gerke
  • Abass Alavi
  • Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
  • Søren HessEmail author
Original Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Suspected serious disease (SSD) is a disease designation often given to patients with one or more non-specific symptoms of severe disease that could be due to cancer; the optimal diagnostic strategy is largely left to the clinician’s discretion. Being a sensitive non-invasive whole-body imaging modality 18F-FDG-PET/CT may have a potential role in this cancer-prevalent group of patients to confirm or refute suspected malignancy. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in SSD using long-term follow-up as reference.

Methods

We retrospectively studied results obtained in all SSD patients referred for 18F-FDG-PET/CT at a single institution in 2010–2011 retrieving the following clinical data in all patients: journal entries, examinations, and evaluations made from 6 months before the scan and until the latest recorded entry. A true positive PET scan was a positive scan with a subsequently biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of cancer in the same target organ, whereas a false positive scan had no subsequent cancer diagnosis. A true negative PET scan was a negative scan without a cancer diagnosis during follow-up, whereas a false negative PET scan was one with a subsequently confirmed cancer diagnosis.

Results

Ninety-three patients, aged 67 years (range 25–89) were included and followed for up to 7.3 years (median 6). Of these, 21 [22.6% (95% CI 15.3–32.1)] turned out to have cancer. With 18F-FDG-PET/CT, the sensitivity was 81.0% (95% CI 60.0–92.3), specificity 76.4% (95% CI 65.4–84.7), positive predictive value 50% (95% CI 34.1–65.9), and negative predictive value 93.2% (95% CI 83.8–97.3). Five patients with negative scans were subsequently diagnosed with cancer.

Conclusion

Cancer prevalence is substantial among patients with SSD. 18F-FDG-PET/CT is a promising option in this setting, in particular because a high negative predictive value equals a low incidence of cancer during follow-up. Further studies are needed to establish the role of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in SSD.

Keywords

Occult cancer Suspected serious disease FDG PET/CT 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Eivind Antonsen Segtnan, BSc., PhD candidate, for guidance, advice, and moral support, and the secretary Bente Stillingsborg for invaluable help with data retrieval.

Funding

There are no financial disclosures; this work received no funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors; only retrospective data was included.

References

  1. 1.
    Danish Board of Health. Diagnostisk pakkeforløb for patienter med uspecifikke symptomer på alvorlig sygdom som kunne være kræft. Copenhagen: Danish Board of Health; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bislev LS, Bruun BJ, Gregersen S, Knudsen ST. Prevalence of cancer in Danish patients referred to a fast-track diagnostic pathway is substantial. Dan Med J 2015;62(9):A5138.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ingeman ML, Christensen MB, Bro F, Knudsen ST, Vedsted P. The Danish cancer pathway for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer-a cross-sectional study of patient characteristics and cancer probability. BMC cancer. 2015;15:421.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lebech AM, Gaardsting A, Loft A, Graff J, Markova E, Bertelsen AK, et al. Whole-body (18)F-FDG PET/CT is superior to CT as first-line diagnostic imaging in patients referred with serious nonspecific symptoms or signs of cancer: a randomized prospective study of 200 patients. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(7):1058–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fredberg U, Vedsted P. [Organisation of diagnosing patients with unspecific cancer symptoms]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2011;173(24):1718–21.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kristensen SB, Hess S, Petersen H, Høilund-Carlsen PF. Clinical value of FDG-PET/CT in suspected paraneoplastic syndromes: a retrospective analysis of 137 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:2056–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hess S, Alavi A, Basu S. PET-based personalized management of infectious and inflammatory disorders. PET Clin. 2016;11(3):351–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Griffeth LK. Use of PET/CT scanning in cancer patients: technical and practical considerations. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2005;18(4):321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tind S, Vestergaard S, Farahani ZA, Hess S. Positron emission tomography/computer tomography in gastrointestinal malignancies: current potential and challenges. Minerva Chir. 2017;72(5):397–415.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hess S, Blomberg BA, Zhu HJ, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Alavi A. The pivotal role of FDG-PET/CT in modern medicine. Acad Radiol. 2014;21(2):232–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farwell MD, Pryma DA, Mankoff DA. PET/CT imaging in cancer: current applications and future directions. Cancer. 2014;120(22):3433–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ, Giammarile F, Tatsch K, Eschner W, et al. FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(2):328–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frary EC, Hess S, Gerke O, Laustrup H. 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography can reliably rule-out infection and cancer in patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis suspected of disease relapse. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(30):e7613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Segtnan EA, Hess S, Grupe P, Høilund-Carlsen PF. F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/computed tomography for primary brain tumors. PET Clin. 2015;10(1):59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valls L, Badve C, Avril S, Herrmann K, Faulhaber P, O’Donnell J, et al. FDG-PET imaging in hematological malignancies. Blood Rev. 2016;30(4):317–31.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wong SS, Yu WL, Wang K, Ahuja AT. Efficacy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in investigation of elevated CEA without known primary malignancy. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2016;26(3):405–10.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Terauchi T, Murano T, Daisaki H, Kanou D, Shoda H, Kakinuma R, et al. Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med. 2008;22(5):379–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nishizawa S, Kojima S, Teramukai S, Inubushi M, Kodama H, Maeda Y, et al. Prospective evaluation of whole-body cancer screening with multiple modalities including [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in a healthy population: a preliminary report. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(11):1767–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sekine T, Barbosa FG, Sah BR, Mader CE, Delso G, Burger IA, et al. PET/MR outperforms PET/CT in suspected occult tumors. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42(2):e88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Acute MedicineHospital of Southwest JutlandEsbjergDenmark
  4. 4.Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of RadiologyHospital of the University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineHospital of Southwest JutlandEsbjergDenmark
  6. 6.Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations