Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The detection rates and tumor clinical/pathological stages of whole-body FDG-PET cancer screening

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: FDG-PET has been used for cancer screening, mainly in East-Asia, and cancers are found not infrequently. However, their stages have not been clarified. We examined the detection rates of various cancers using whole-body PET for the screening of cancers in asymptomatic individuals, focusing on their clinical and pathological stages.Methods: Whole-body PET was obtained as a part of our cancer screening program among 3,426 healthy subjects. All subjects participated in a course of PET examination in conjunction with conventional examinations including a medical questionnaire, tumor markers, immunological fecal occult blood test, neck and abdominal ultrasonography and whole body computed tomography. A diagnosis and staging was obtained by an analysis of the pathological findings or by an analysis of the clinical follow-up data.Results: Malignant tumors were discovered in 65 lesions found in 3,426 participants (1.90%). The PET findings were true-positive in 46 of the 65 cancer cases. The cancers were found in the following organs: the colon 14; thyroid gland 10; stomach 7; lung 5; liver 3; breast 2; and one each in the kidney, gallbladder, esophagus, pancreas and retroperitoneum. The stages were as follows: stage 0 5, stage I 17, stage II 10, stage III 7, and stage IV 6. One was an unknown primary. There were 19 false-negative findings (0.6%) on PET. Six cancers (0.18%) were missed in our screening program.Conclusions: PET imaging has the potential to detect a wide variety of cancers at potentially curative stages. Most PET-negative cancers are early stage cancers, and thus can be detected using other conventional examinations such as endoscopy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rigo P, Paulus P, Kaschten BJ, Hustinx R, Bury T, Jerusalem G, et al. Oncological applications of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose.Eur J Nucl Med 1996; 23: 1641–1674.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Adler LP, Blair HF, Makley JT, Williams RP, Joyce MJ, Leisure G, et al. Noninvasive grading of musculoskeletal tumors using PET.J Nucl Med 1991; 32: 1508–1512.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Price P, Jones T. Can positron emission tomography (PET) be used to detect subclinical response to cancer therapy?Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 1924–1927.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Okada J, Oonishi H, Yoshikawa K, Itami J, Uno K, Imaseki K, et al. FDG-PET for predicting the prognosis of malignant lymphoma.Ann Nucl Med 1994; 8: 187–191.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nakata B, Chung YS, Nishimura S, Nishihara T, Sakurai Y, Sawada T, et al.18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and the prognosis of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Cancer 1997; 79: 695–699.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Oshida M, Uno K, Suzuki M, Nagashima T, Hashimoto H, Yagata H, et al. Predicting the prognoses of breast carcinoma patients with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-fluoro18F-D-glucose.Cancer 1998; 82: 2227–2234.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Guerrero TM, Hoffman FJ, Dahlbom M, Cutler PD, Hawkins RA, Phelps ME. Characterization of a whole body imaging technique for PET.IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1990; 37 (2): 676–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Conti PS, Lilien DJ, Hawley K, Keppler J, Grafton ST, Bading JR. PET and 18-[F] FDG in oncology: a clinical update.Nucl Med Biol 1996; 23: 717–735.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Delbeke D. Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging: brain tumors, colorectal cancer lymphoma and melanoma.J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 591–603.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lassen U, Daugaard G, Eigtved A, Damgaard K, Friberg L.18F-FDG whole body positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with unknown primary tumours (UPT).Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 1076–1082.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Yasuda S, Shohtsu A. Cancer screening with whole-body18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography.The Lancet 1997; 350: 1819.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen YK, Ding HJY, Su CT, Shen YY, Chen LK, Liao AC, et al. Application of PET and PET/CT imaging for Cancer Screening.Anticancer Res 2004; 24: 4103–4108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shen YY, Su CT, Chen GJS, Chen YK, Liao ACF, Tsai FS. The value of18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with the additional help of tumor markers in cancer screening.Neoplasma 2003; 50 (3): 217–221.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ide M. Cancer screening with FDG-PET.Jpn J Clin Radiol 2004; 49: 835–840.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kao CH, Kwan AS, Kwan JK, Chow MJ. The role of18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cancer screening—A preliminary report.Oncology Reports 2001; 8: 1145–1148.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 (12): 1607–1611.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jinnouchi S. Could FDG-PET change the conventional scheme of cancer screening?Jpn J Clin Radiol 2004; 49: 855–863.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Engel H, Steinert H, Buck A, Berthold T, Huch Boni RA, von Schulthess GK. Whole-body PET: physiological and artifactual fluorodeoxyglucose accumulations.J Nucl Med 1996; 37: 441–446.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH, eds.TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 5th ed. New York; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Japan Cancer Society.The Statistics of Cancer Screening 2003. Tokyo; Japan Cancer Society, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Mass Survey.Annual report of gastroenterological mass survey in Japan 2002. Tokyo; Japanese Society of Gastroenterological Mass Survey, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Uno K, Woo J, Suzuki T, Suzuki H, Kosaka N, Matsuo Y, et al. What are the problems of cancer screening using FDG-PET?Jpn J Clin Radiol 2004; 49: 841–846.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chung WY, Chang HS, Kim EK, Park CS. Ultrasonographic mass screening for thyroid carcinoma: a study in women scheduled to undergo a breast examination.Surgery Today 2001; 31: 763–767.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Siironen P, Louhimo J, Nordling S, Ristimäki A, Mäenpää H, Haapiainen R, et al. Prognostic Factors in Papillary Thyroid Cancer: An Evaluation of 601 Consecutive Patients.Tumor Biology 2005; 26: 57–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sobue T, Moriyama N, Kaneko M, Kusumoto M, Kobayashi T, Tsuchiya R, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose helical computed tomography: anti-lung cancer association project.J Clin Oncol 2002; 20 (4): 911–920.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, Naruke T, Suemasu K, Uno K. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3 cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images.Lung Cancer 2004; 45 (1): 19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, Becker K, Link T, Siewert JR, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings.Eur J Nucl Med 2003; 30 (2): 288–295.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hofer C, Kubler H, Hartung R, Breul J, Avril N. Diagnosis and monitoring of urological tumors using positron emission tomography.Eur Urol 2001; 40 (5): 481–487.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Merminod T, Zulian GB. Multiple malignant tumours in the elderly.Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002; 43 (3): 227–230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Yokoe K, Miyabe K, Ogawa T, Toyama Y, et al. FDG PET as a procedure for detecting simultaneous tumours in head and neck cancer patients.Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26: 239–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ishimori T, Patel PV, Wahl RL. Detection of Unexpected Additional Primary Malignancies with PET/CT.J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 752–757.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Di Martino E, Nowak B, Hassan HA, Hausmann R, Adam G, Buell U, et al. Diagnosis and staging of head and neck cancer.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 126: 1457–1461.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Robert G, Milne R. A Selphi study to establish national cost-effectiveness research priorities for positron emission tomography.Eur J Radiol 1999; 30: 54–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vade A, Demos TC, Olson MC, Subbaiah P, Turbin RC, Vickery K, et al. Evaluation of image quality using 1∶1 pitch and 1.5∶1 pitch helical CT in children: a comparative study.Pediatr Radiol 1996; 26: 891–893.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Yasuda S, Ide M. PET and cancer screening.Ann Nucl Med 2005; 19 (3): 167–177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Koga Hospital 21, Kurume, Japan

    Reiji Ochiai

  2. Department of Radiology, Koga Hospital 21 PET Center, Kurume, Japan

    Tsuyoshi Yoshida & Mami Kitagawa

  3. Department of Radiology, Koga Clinic, Kurume, Japan

    Hisashi Kobayashi

  4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kurume, Japan

    Yasuyuki Yamashita

  5. Department of Radiology, Tenjin-Kai Shin-Koga Hospital, 120 Tenjin-cho, 830-8577, Kurume, Japan

    Ken Ono M.D. & Junichi Omagari

Authors
  1. Ken Ono M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Reiji Ochiai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tsuyoshi Yoshida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mami Kitagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Junichi Omagari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hisashi Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yasuyuki Yamashita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken Ono M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ono, K., Ochiai, R., Yoshida, T. et al. The detection rates and tumor clinical/pathological stages of whole-body FDG-PET cancer screening. Ann Nucl Med 21, 65–72 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03034001

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03034001

Key words

Search

Navigation