Skip to main content


Log in

Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening?

  • Controversies–Against
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.


  1. Agress H Jr, Cooper BZ. Detection of clinically unexpected malignant and premalignant tumors with whole-body FDG PET: histopathologic comparison. Radiology 2004;230:417–22.

    Google Scholar 


  3. Bayes T. An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 1763;53:370–418.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Drenth JP, Nagengast FM, Oyen WJ. Evaluation of (pre-)malignant colonic abnormalities: endoscopic validation of FDG-PET findings. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1766–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yasuda S, Fujii H, Nakahara T, Nishiumi N, Takahashi W, Ide M, et al. 18F-FDG PET detection of colonic adenomas. J Nucl Med 2001;42:989–92.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Patz EF Jr, Goodman PC, Bepler G. Screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;30(343):1627–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen YK, Kao CH, Liao AC, Shen YY, Su CT. Colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic adults: the role of FDG PET scan. Anticancer Res 2003;23:4357–61.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shen YY, Su CT, Chen GJ, Chen YK, Liao AC, Tsai FS. The value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with the additional help of tumor markers in cancer screening. Neoplasma 2003;50:217–21.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yasuda S, Ide M, Fujii H, Nakahara T, Mochizuki Y, Takahashi W, et al. Application of positron emission tomography imaging to cancer screening. Br J Cancer 2000;83:1607–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Assmann G, Cullen P, Schulte H. Simple scoring scheme for calculating the risk of acute coronary events based on the 10-year follow-up of the prospective cardiovascular Munster (PROCAM) study. Circulation 2002;105:310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith JA, Andreopoulou E. An overview of the status of imaging screening technology for breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2004;15:I18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ell PJ. News and views. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;31:127–38.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deloar HM, Fujiwara T, Shidahara M, Nakamura T, Watabe H, Narita Y, et al. Estimation of absorbed dose for 2-[F-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose using whole-body positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:565–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. International Commission on Radiological Protection, Report No. 60 (1991) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

  15. Pastorino U, Bellomi M, Landoni C, De Fiori E, Arnaldi P, Picchio M, et al. Early lung-cancer detection with spiral CT and positron emission tomography in heavy smokers: 2-year results. Lancet 2003;362:593–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Weckesser.

Additional information

The opinions expressed within the Controversies section represent the views of the authors only. The article arguing for this proposition is published at

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weckesser, M., Schober, O. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32, 342–343 (2005).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: