Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical role of early dynamic FDG-PET/CT for the evaluation of renal cell carcinoma

  • Nuclear Medicine
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

We studied the usefulness of early dynamic (ED) and whole-body (WB) FDG-PET/CT for the evaluation of renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Methods

One hundred patients with 107 tumours underwent kidney ED and WB FDG-PET/CT. We visually and semiquantitatively evaluated the FDG accumulation in RCCs in the ED and WB phases, and compared the accumulation values with regard to histological type (clear cell carcinoma [CCC] vs. non-clear cell carcinoma [N-CCC]), the TNM stage (high stage [3–4] vs. low stage [1–2]), the Fuhrman grade (high grade [3–4] vs. low grade [1–2]) and presence versus absence of venous (V) and lymphatic (Ly) invasion.

Results

In the ED phase, visual evaluation revealed no significant differences in FDG accumulation in terms of each item. However, the maximum standardized uptake value and tumour-to-normal tissue ratios were significantly higher in the CCCs compared to the N-CCCs (p < 0.001). In the WB phase, in contrast, significantly higher FDG accumulation (p < 0.001) was found in RCCs with a higher TNM stage, higher Furman grade, and the presence of V and Ly invasion in both the visual and the semiquantitative evaluations.

Conclusions

ED and WB FDG-PET/CT is a useful tool for the evaluation of RCCs.

Key Points

• ED and WB FDG-PET/ CT helps to assess patients with RCC

• ED FDG-PET/CT enabled differentiation between CCC and N-CCC

• FDG accumulation in the WB phase reflects tumour aggressiveness

• Management of RCC is improved by ED and WB FDG-PET/CT

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2013) Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 63:11–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, Weaver AL, Blute ML (2003) Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 27:612–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoffmann NE, Gillett MD, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Blute ML (2008) Differences in organ system of distant metastasis by renal cell carcinoma subtype. J J Urol 179:474–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Dorey F et al (2001) Improved prognostication of renal cell carcinoma using an integrated staging system. J Clin Oncol 19:1649–1657

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6:655–663

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Polat EC, Otunctemur A, Ozbek E et al (2014) Standardized uptake values highly correlate with tumour size and Fuhrman grade in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15:7821–7824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ozülker T, Ozülker F, Ozbek E, Ozpaçaci T (2011) A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the evaluation of indeterminate renal masses. Nucl Med Commun 32:265–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Noda Y, Kanematsu M, Goshima S, Suzui N, Hirose Y, Matsunaga K et al (2015) 18-F fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography as a pathological grade predictor for renal clear cell carcinomas. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3687-2

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bertagna F, Motta F, Bertoli M et al (2013) Role of F18-FDG-PET/CT in restaging patients affected by renal carcinoma. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur 16:3–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Epelbaum R, Frenkel A, Haddad R et al (2013) Tumour aggressiveness and patient outcome in cancer of the pancreas assessed by dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 54:12–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bernstine H, Braun M, Yefremov N et al (2011) FDG PET/CT early dynamic blood flow and late standardized uptake value determination in hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology 260:503–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schierz JH, Opfermann T, Steenbeck J et al (2013) Early dynamic 18F-FDG PET to detect hyperperfusion in hepatocellular carcinoma liver lesions. J Nucl Med 54:848–854

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Belakhlef S, Church C, Jani C, Lakhanpal S (2012) Early dynamic PET/CT and 18F-FDG blood flow imaging in bladder cancer detection: a novel approach. Clin Nucl Med 37:366–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McCollough C, Cody D, Edyvean S et al (2008) American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report 96. The Measurement, Reporting, and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. AAPM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Miyakita H, Tokunaga M, Onda H et al (2002) Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) for detection of renal cell carcinoma and immunohistochemical glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) expression in the cancer. Int J Urol 9:15–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramdave S, Thomas GW, Berlangieri SU et al (2001) Clinical role of 18-F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection and management of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166:825–830

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aide N, Cappele O, Bottet P et al (2003) Efficiency of [18-F]FDG PET in characterising renal cancer and detecting distant metastases: a comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:1236–1245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ak I, Can C (2005) F-18 FDG PET in detecting renal cell carcinoma. Acta Radiol 46:895–899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Young JR, Margolis D, Sauk S, Pantuck AJ, Sayre J, Raman SS (2013) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT. Radiology 267:444–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Mukai M et al (2002) Double-phase helical CT of small renal parenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumour angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:835–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dall’Oglio MF, Antunes AA, Sarkis AS et al (2007) Microvascular tumour invasion in renal cell carcinoma: the most important prognostic factor. BJU Int 100:552–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maruyama M, Yoshizako T, Uchida K et al (2015) Comparison of utility of tumour size and apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiation of low- and high-grade clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Acta Radiol 56:250–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cornelis F, Tricaud E, Lasserre AS et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the differentiation of low and high grade clear cell renal carcinoma. Eur Radiol 25:24–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Shuji Sakai. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. Drs. Shigeo Kamitsuji and Naoyuki Kamatani, StaGen Co. Ltd., kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript, for which the authors are very grateful. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic study, performed at one institution. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan

    Reiko Nakajima, Koichiro Abe & Shuji Sakai

  2. Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan

    Tsunenori Kondo & Kazunari Tanabe

Authors
  1. Reiko Nakajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Koichiro Abe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsunenori Kondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kazunari Tanabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuji Sakai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Koichiro Abe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakajima, R., Abe, K., Kondo, T. et al. Clinical role of early dynamic FDG-PET/CT for the evaluation of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 26, 1852–1862 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4026-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4026-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation