Molecular Imaging in Oncology pp 351-369

Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 187)

FDG PET and PET/CT

  • Berud J. Krause
  • Sarah Schwarzenböck
  • Michael Souvatzoglou

Abstract

Molecular imaging with positron emission tomography (PET) using tumour-seeking radiopharmaceuticals has gained wide acceptance in oncology with many clinical applications. The hybrid imaging modality PET/CT allows assessing molecular as well as morphologic information at the same time. Therefore, PET/CT represents an efficient tool for whole body staging and re-staging within one imaging modality. In oncology the glucose analogue 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) is the most widely used PET and PET/CT radiopharmaceutical in clinical routine. FDG PET and PET/CT have been used for staging and re-staging tumour patients in numerous studies. This chapter will discuss the use and the main indications of FDG PET and PET/CT in oncology with special emphasis on lung cancer, oesophageal cancer, colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, lymphoma and breast cancer (among other tumour entities). A review of the current literature will be given with respect to primary diagnosis, staging and diagnosis of recurrent disease (local, lymph node and distant metastases). Besides its integral role in diagnosis, staging and re-staging of disease in oncology, there is increasing evidence that FDG PET and PET/CT can significantly contribute to therapy response assessment possibly influencing therapeutic management and treatment planning, to therapy tumour control and prediction of prognosis in oncologic patients, which will also be discussed in this chapter.

References

  1. Albers P, Bender H, Yilmaz H et al (1999) Positron emission tomography in the clinical staging of patients with Stage I and II testicular germ cell tumors. Urology 53(4):808–811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastiaannet E, Groen H, Jager PL et al (2004) The value of FDG-PET in the detection, grading and response to therapy of soft tissue and bone sarcomas; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev 30(1):83–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertagna F, Biasiotto G, Orlando E et al (2010) Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients affected by differentiated thyroid carcinoma, high thyroglobulin level, and negative 131I scan: review of the literature. Jpn J Radiol 28(9):629–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birim O, Kappetein AP, Stijnen T et al (2005) Meta-analysis of positron emission tomographic and computed tomographic imaging in detecting mediastinal lymph node metastases in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 79(1):375–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brush J, Boyd K, Chappell F et al. (2011). The value of FDG positron emission tomography/computerised tomography (PET/CT) in pre-operative staging of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 15(35): 1–192, iii-ivGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME et al (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25(5):579–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Czernin J, Benz MR, Allen-Auerbach MS (2010) PET/CT imaging: the incremental value of assessing the glucose metabolic phenotype and the structure of cancers in a single examination. Eur J Radiol 73(3):470–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C et al (2004) 2-18fluoro-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor for viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma: an update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial. J Clin Oncol 22(6):1034–1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delgado-Bolton RC, Fernandez-Perez C, Gonzalez-Mate A et al (2003) Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in primary tumor detection in unknown primary tumors. J Nucl Med 44(8):1301–1314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Duet M, Hugonnet F, Faraggi M (2010) Role of positron emission tomography (PET) in head and neck cancer. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 127(1):40–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G et al (2003) Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood 101(10):3875–3876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Essler M, Link A, Belloni B et al (2011) Prognostic value of [18F]-fluoro-deoxy-glucose PET/CT, S100 or MIA for assessment of cancer-associated mortality in patients with high risk melanoma. PLoS ONE 6(9):e24632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer BM, Mortensen J, Hojgaard L (2001) Positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer: a systematic, quantitative review. Lancet Oncol 2(11):659–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fletcher C, Uni K, Meteus F (eds) (2002) World Health Organization Classification of Tumors, Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of Soft Tissue and Bone. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP et al (2008) Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 49(3):480–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forstner R, Sala E, Kinkel K et al (2010) ESUR guidelines: ovarian cancer staging and follow-up. Eur Radiol 20(12):2773–2780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG et al (2001) Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 285(7):914–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gupta T, Master Z, Kannan S et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of post-treatment FDG PET or FDG PET/CT imaging in head and neck cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(11):2083–2095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR et al (2000) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of germ cell tumours at relapse. Br J Cancer 83(7):863–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Havrilesky LJ, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB et al (2005) FDG-PET for management of cervical and ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 97(1):183–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrmann K, Benz MR, Krause BJ et al. (2012) F-18-FDG-PET/CT in evaluating response to therapy in solid tumors: where we are and where we can go. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging: in pressGoogle Scholar
  22. Herrmann K, Ott K, Buck AK et al (2007) Imaging gastric cancer with PET and the radiotracers 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG: a comparative analysis. J Nucl Med 48(12):1945–1950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Hahn S et al (2009) Diagnostic value of full-dose FDG PET/CT for axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36(10):1543–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooft L, Hoekstra OS, Deville W et al (2001) Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the follow-up of papillary or follicular thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86(8):3779–3786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE et al (2000) A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 41(7):1177–1189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchings M, Barrington SF (2009) PET/CT for therapy response assessment in lymphoma. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):21S–30SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jadvar H (2011) Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med 52(1):81–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS et al (2007) Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25(5):571–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kubicek GJ, Champ C, Fogh S et al (2010) FDG-PET staging and importance of lymph node SUV in head and neck cancer. Head Neck Oncol 2:19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kwee TC, Kwee RM (2009) Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 19(3):731–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lv YL, Yuan DM, Wang K et al (2011) Diagnostic performance of integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography for mediastinal lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: a bivariate systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Oncol 6(8):1350–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG et al (1998) Extranodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology 206(2):475–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Orlando LA, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB (2004) Meta-analysis: the detection of pancreatic malignancy with positron emission tomography. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 20(10):1063–1070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patnana M, Bronstein Y, Szklaruk J et al (2011) Multimethod imaging, staging, and spectrum of manifestations of metastatic melanoma. Clin Radiol 66(3):224–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reske SN (2009) PET and PET-CT of malignant tumors of the exocrine pancreas. Radiologe 49(2):131–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruf J, Lopez Hanninen E, Oettle H et al (2005) Detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer: comparison of FDG-PET with CT/MRI. Pancreatology 5(2–3):266–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rusthoven KE, Koshy M, Paulino AC (2004) The role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cervical lymph node metastases from an unknown primary tumor. Cancer 101(11):2641–2649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schick V, Franzius C, Beyna T et al (2008) Diagnostic impact of 18F-FDG PET-CT evaluating solid pancreatic lesions versus endosonography, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography with intraductal ultrasonography and abdominal ultrasound. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35(10):1775–1785PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schoder H, Herrmann K, Gonen M et al (2005) 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of disease in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after radical prostatectomy. Clin Cancer Res 11(13):4761–4769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schreyogg J, Weller J, Stargardt T et al (2010) Cost-effectiveness of hybrid PET/CT for staging of non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 51(11):1668–1675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schwarz JK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F et al (2009) The role of 18F-FDG PET in assessing therapy response in cancer of the cervix and ovaries. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):64S–73SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van den Abbeele AD (2008) The lessons of GIST–PET and PET/CT: a new paradigm for imaging. Oncologist 13(Suppl 2):8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF et al (2002) Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 359(9315):1388–1393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Vliet EP, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Hunink MG et al (2008) Staging investigations for oesophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 98(3):547–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Westreenen HL, Westerterp M, Bossuyt PM et al (2004) Systematic review of the staging performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in esophageal cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(18):3805–3812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Viney RC, Boyer MJ, King MT et al (2004) Randomized controlled trial of the role of positron emission tomography in the management of stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 22(12):2357–2362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y et al (2009) From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):122S–150SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu LM, Hu JN, Hua J et al (2012) 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography to Evaluate Recurrent Gastric Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27(3):472–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xie P, Li M, Zhao H et al (2011) 18F-FDG PET or PET-CT to evaluate prognosis for head and neck cancer: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 137(7):1085–1093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berud J. Krause
    • 1
  • Sarah Schwarzenböck
    • 1
  • Michael Souvatzoglou
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversitätsklinikum RostockRostockGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineKlinikum rechts der Isar, Technische UniversitätMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations