Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 41–46 | Cite as

Characteristics of Metastatic Mediastinal Lymph Nodes of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer on Preoperative F-18 FDG PET/CT

  • Ah Young Lee
  • Su Jung Choi
  • Kyung Pyo Jung
  • Ji Sun Park
  • Seok Mo Lee
  • Sang Kyun Bae
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of PET and CT features of mediastinal metastatic lymph nodes on F-18 FDG PET/CT and to determine the diagnostic criteria in nodal staging of non-small cell lung cancer.

Methods

One hundred four non-small cell lung cancer patients who had preoperative F-18 FDG PET/CT were included. For quantitative analysis, the maximum SUV of the primary tumor, maximum SUV of the lymph nodes (SUVmax), size of the lymph nodes, and average Hounsfield units (aHUs) and maximum Hounsfield units (mHUs) of the lymph nodes were measured. The SUVmax, SUV ratio of the lymph node to blood pool (LN SUV/blood pool SUV), SUV ratio of the lymph node to primary tumor (LN SUV/primary tumor SUV), size, aHU, and mHU were compared between the benign and malignant lymph nodes.

Results

Among 372 dissected lymph node stations that were pathologically diagnosed after surgery, 49 node stations were malignant and 323 node stations benign. SUVmax, LN SUV/blood pool SUV, and size were significantly different between the malignant and benign lymph node stations (P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in LN SUV/primary tumor SUV (P = 0.18), mHU (P = 0.42), and aHU (P = 0.98). Using receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses, there was no significant difference among these three variables (SUVmax, LN SUV/blood pool SUV, and size). The optimal cutoff values were 2.9 for SUVmax, 1.4 for LN SUV/blood pool SUV, and 5 mm for size. When the cutoff value of SUVmax ≥2.9 and size ≥5 mm were used in combination, the positive predictive value was 44.2 %, and the negative predictive value was 90.9 %. When we evaluated the results based on the histology of the primary tumor, the negative predictive value was 92.3 % in adenocarcinoma (cutoff values of SUVmax ≥2.3 and size ≥5 mm) and 97.2 % in squamous cell carcinoma (cutoff values of SUVmax ≥3.6 and size ≥8 mm), separately.

Conclusions

In the lymph node staging of non-small cell lung cancer, SUVmax, LN SUV/blood pool SUV, and size show statistically significant differences between malignant and benign lymph nodes. These variables can be used to differentiate malignant from benign lymph nodes. The combination of the SUVmax and size of lymph node might have a good negative predictive value.

Keywords

F-18 FDG PET/CT Non-small cell lung cancer Mediastinal lymph nodes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the 2012 Collaborative Research Program of Nuclear Medical Sciences through the Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences (DIRAMS) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) and Busan Metropolitan City.

Conflict of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Tanaka F, Yanagihara K, Otake Y, Miyahara R, Kawano Y, Nakagawa T, et al. Surgery for non-small cell lung cancer: postoperative survival based on the revised tumor-node-metastasis classification and its time trend. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2000;18:147–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ministry of Health and Welfare, National cancer center. National cancer registration Statistics (updated 2012 Jan 5) Available from: http://www.cancer.go.kr/ncic/cics_f/02/022/index.html.
  3. 3.
    Bonomo L, Ciccotosto C, Guidotti A, Storto ML. Lung cancer staging: the role of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 1996;23:35–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McLoud T, Bourgouin P, Greenberg R, Kosiuk J, Templeton P, Shepard J, 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
  5. 5.
    Kubota K. From tumor biology to clinical PET: a review of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology. Ann Nucl Med. 2001;15:471–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyer T, Townsend D, Blodgett T. Dual-modality PET/CT tomography for clinical oncology. Q J Nucl Med. 2002;46:24–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta NC, Tamim WJ, Graeber GG, Bishop HA, Hobbs GR. Mediastinal lymph node sampling following positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in lung cancer staging. Chest. 2001;120:521–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yoon YC, Lee KS, Shim YM, Kim BT, Kim K, Kim TS. Metastasis to regional lymph nodes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: CT versus FDG PET for presurgical detection—prospective study1. Radiology. 2003;227:764–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics. 1999;19:61–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    An YS, Sun JS, Park KJ, Hwang SC, Park KJ, Sheen SS, et al. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT for lymph node staging in patients with operable non-small-cell lung cancer and inflammatory lung disease. Lung. 2008;186:327–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim HY. Staging of lung cancer. J Korean Med Assoc. 2008;51:1118–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glazer G, Orringer M, Gross B, Quint L. The mediastinum in non-small cell lung cancer: CT-surgical correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 1984;142:1101–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beadsmoore C, Screaton N. Classification, staging and prognosis of lung cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2003;45:8–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Webb W, Gatsonis C, Zerhouni E, Heelan R, Glazer G, Francis I, et al. CT and MR imaging in staging non-small cell bronchogenic carcinoma: report of the radiologic diagnostic oncology group. Radiology. 1991;178:705–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dwamena BA, Sonnad SS, Angobaldo JO, Wahl RL. Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: mediastinal staging in the 1990s Meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT1. Radiology. 1999;213:530–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hellwig D, Ukena D, Paulsen F, Bamberg M, Kirsch C. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of positron emission tomography with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in lung tumors. basis for discussion of the german consensus conference on PET in oncology 2000. Pneumologie. 2001;55:367–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Bryant AS, Bass CS, Bartalucci AA, Mountz JM. The role of FDG-PET scan in staging patients with nonsmall cell carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:861–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmücking M, Baum R, Bonnet R, Junker K, Müller K. Correlation of histologic results with PET findings for tumor regression and survival in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant treatment. Pathologe. 2005;26:178–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodríguez Fernández A, Gómez Río M, Llamas Elvira JM, Sánchez-Palencia Ramos A, Bellón Guardia M, Ramos Font C, et al. Diagnosis efficacy of structural (CT) and functional (FDG-PET) imaging methods in the thoracic and extrathoracic staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 2007;9:32–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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
  23. 23.
    Turkmen C, Sonmezoglu K, Toker A, Ylmazbayhan D, Dilege S, Halac M, et al. The additional value of FDG PET imaging for distinguishing N0 or N1 from N2 stage in preoperative staging of non-small cell lung cancer in region where the prevalence of inflammatory lung disease is high. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32:607–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Balogova S, Grahek D, Kerrou K, Montravers F, Younsi N, Aide N, et al. 18F-FDG imaging in apparently isolated pleural lesions. Rev Pneumol Clin. 2003;59:275–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tournoy K, Maddens S, Gosselin R, Van Maele G, Van Meerbeeck J, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar A, Dutta R, Kannan U, Kumar R, Khilnani GC, Gupta SD. Evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes using 18F-FDG PET-CT scan and its histopathologic correlation. Ann Thorac Med. 2011;6:11–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nakamoto Y, Tatsumi M, Hammoud D, Cohade C, Osman MM, Wahl RL. Normal FDG distribution patterns in the head and neck: PET/CT Evaluation1. Radiology. 2005;234:879–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nguyen XC, So Y, Chung JH, Lee WW, Park SY, Kim SE. High correlations between primary tumours and loco-regional metastatic lymph nodes in non-small-cell lung cancer with respect to glucose transporter type 1-mediated 2-deoxy-2-F18-fluoro-D-glucose uptake. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:692–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim DW, Kim WH, Kim CG. Dual-time-point FDG PET/CT: is it useful for lymph node staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer? Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;46:196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koksal D, Demirag F, Bayiz H, Ozmen O, Tatci E, Berktas B, et al. The correlation of SUVmax with pathological characteristics of primary tumor and the value of Tumor/Lymph node SUVmax ratio for predicting metastasis to lymph nodes in resected NSCLC patients. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013. doi:10.1186/1749-8090-8-63.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weder W. Lung cancer: new opportunities—changing algorithm in staging. Ann Oncol. 2008;19 suppl 7:vii28–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Leyn P, Lardinois D, Van Schil PE, Rami-Porta R, Passlick B, Zielinski M, et al. ESTS guidelines for preoperative lymph node staging for non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg. 2007;32:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ah Young Lee
    • 1
  • Su Jung Choi
    • 1
  • Kyung Pyo Jung
    • 1
  • Ji Sun Park
    • 1
  • Seok Mo Lee
    • 1
  • Sang Kyun Bae
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Busan Paik HospitalInje University College of MedicineBusanKorea

Personalised recommendations