Diagnostic performance of 11C-choline PET/CT and FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of renal cell cancer
To compare findings obtained with 11C-choline and FDG PET/CT scanning for renal cell carcinoma staging and restaging.
Materials and methods
Twenty-eight renal cell carcinoma patients whose histological subtype was clear cell type in 26 and papillary type in 2, while Fuhrman nuclear grade was G1,2 in 16 and G3,4 in 12, underwent both 11C-choline and FDG PET/CT examinations before (n = 10) and/or after (n = 18) treatment, then those scanning modalities were compared in regard to patient- and lesion-based diagnostic performance using 5 grading scores. Final diagnosis in each case was obtained based on histopathology, conventional radiological imaging, and clinical follow-up findings. The differences between 11C-choline and FDG PET/CT findings were evaluated using receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis and a McNemar test.
Patient-based sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, negative predictive, accuracy, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) values for 11C-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging were 88.0% (22/25), 66.7% (2/3), 95.7% (22/23), 40.0% (2/5), 85.7% (24/28), and 0.887, respectively, while those for FDG-PET/CT were 56.0% (14/25), 66.7% (2/3), 93.3% (14/15), 15.4% (2/13), 57.1% (16/28), and 0.647, respectively. Sensitivity, accuracy, and AUC were significantly different (p = 0.013, p = 0.013, p = 0.012, respectively). Among the 120 lesions, those with kidney, lung, lymph node, bone, pancreas, venous tumor thrombosis, adrenal gland, liver, or skin localization numbered 15, 64, 16, 13, 4, 3, 2, 2, and 1, respectively. For all 120 lesions, 75 (62.5%) and 47 (39.2%) were detected by 11C-choline and FDG PET/CT, respectively (p < 0.0001).
For staging and restaging of renal cell carcinoma patients, 11C-choline-PET/CT is significantly more useful than FDG-PET/CT.
KeywordsRenal cell carcinoma PET Choline FDG
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
We declare no financial support or relationship that may pose conflict of interest.
We clearly state that human participants have the approval of an appropriate named ethics committee including Helsinki declaration. We declare no financial support or relationship that may pose conflict of interest. The authors confirm that this manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere, in part or in entirety, and is not under consideration by any other journal. All authors have made substantial contributions to this work and have read and approved the final submitted version.
- 8.Hugonnet F, Fournier L, Medioni J, Smadja C, Hindié E, Huchet V, et al. Hypoxia in Renal Cancer Multicenter Group: metastatic renal cell carcinoma: relationship between initial metastasis hypoxia, change after 1 month’s sunitinib, and therapeutic response: an 18F-fluoromisonidazole PET/CT study. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1048–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Miyakita H, Tokunaga M, Onda H, Usui Y, Kinoshita H, Kawamura N, et al. Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for detection of renal cell carcinoma and immunohistochemical glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) expression in the cancer. Int J Urol. 2002;9:15–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar