Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiologische Diagnostik des CUP-Syndroms

Radiological diagnostics in CUP syndrome

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Klinisches/methodisches Problem

Im therapeutischen Management des Cancer-of-unknown-primary(CUP)-Syndroms spielt die bildgebende Diagnostik eine zentrale Rolle zur Lokalisation des Primärtumors, zur Identifikation von Tumoren, für die ein dediziertes Behandlungsschema zur Verfügung steht, sowie zur Charakterisierung klinisch-pathologischer Subentitäten, die das weitere diagnostische und therapeutische Procedere bestimmen und eine Einschätzung der Prognose erlauben.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

Zur Verfügung stehende radiologische Modalitäten umfassen die Projektionsradiographie, die Computertomographie (CT), die Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) und die Sonographie sowie die Hybridverfahren Positronenemissionstomographie(PET)-CT und MR-PET.

Leistungsfähigkeit

In der Ganzkörperbildgebung hat die CT eine hohe Sensitivität für Tumoren, die häufig als metastasierte Tumorerkrankung auftreten. Nach aktueller Literatur ist die CT bei Patienten mit Pankreaskarzinom in 86% der Fälle diagnostisch, bei Patienten mit Kolonkarzinom in 36% und bei Patienten mit Bronchialkarzinom in 74%. Des Weiteren zeigte eine Metaanalyse, dass bei Patienten mit Plattenepithelkarzinom und zervikalen Lymphknotenmetastasen die CT in 22% der Fälle den Primärtumor lokalisieren konnte, im Vergleich zu 36% Detektionsrate der MRT und 28–57% der PET-CT mit 18F-FDG (Fluordesoxyglukose). Der MRT kommt auf Grund des hohen Weichteilkontrasts und der Möglichkeit zur funktionellen Bildgebung besondere Bedeutung bei der Lokalisation primär okkulter Tumoren bei Organuntersuchungen zu, z. B. beim Mamma- oder dem Prostatakarzinom.

Bewertung

Zur Ganzkörperbildgebung steht die CT von Hals, Thorax und Abdomen im klinischen Alltag häufig am Anfang. Je nach Befund folgen organspezifische bildgebende Untersuchungen, um den Primarius zu lokalisieren, z. B. die Mammographie bei Frauen mit axillärer Lymphadenopathie. Zur histologischen und immunhistochemischen Charakterisierung des Tumors dient die Bildgebung auch dazu, eine repräsentative und gut zugängliche Tumormanifestation zu identifizieren und ggf. auch bildgestützt zu biopsieren.

Empfehlung für die Praxis

Am Anfang des diagnostischen Algorithmus bei CUP-Syndrom steht eine Ganzkörperbildgebung zur Primärtumorsuche. Im klinischen Alltag häufig ist die kontrastverstärkte CT von Hals, Thorax und Abdomen, wobei multiple Studien für die 18F-FDG-PET-CT eine verbesserte Sensitivität bei der Detektion von Primärtumoren und metastatischer Tumormanifestationen zeigten.

Abstract

Clinical/methodical issue

Imaging plays an essential role in the therapeutic management of cancer of unknown primary (CUP) patients for localizing the primary tumor, for the identification of tumor entities for which a dedicated therapy regimen is available and for the characterization of clinicopathological subentities that direct the subsequent diagnostic and therapeutic strategy.

Standard radiological methods

Modalities include conventional x-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound as well as positron emission tomography (PET)-CT and MRI-PET.

Performance

In whole body imaging CT has a high sensitivity for tumor entities which frequently present as a metastasized cancer illness. According to the current literature CT is diagnostic in 86% of patients with pancreatic carcinoma, in 36% of patients with colon carcinoma and in 74% of patients with lung carcinoma. Additionally a meta-analysis showed that for patients with squamous cell carcinoma and cervical lymph node metastases a positive diagnosis was possible in 22% of the cases using CT, in 36% using MRI and in 28-57% using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT (18F-FDG PET-CT). In addition, MRI plays an important role in the localization of primary occult tumors (e.g. breast and prostate) because of its high soft tissue contrast and options for functional imaging.

Achievements

At the beginning of the diagnostic algorithm stands the search for a possible primary tumor and CT of the neck, thorax and abdomen is most frequently used for whole body staging. Subsequent organ-specific imaging examinations follow, e.g. mammography in women with axillary lymphadenopathy. For histological and immunohistochemical characterization of tumor tissue, imaging is also applied to identify the most accessible and representative tumor manifestation for biopsy. Tumor biopsy may be guided by CT, MRI or ultrasound and MRI also plays a central role in the localization of primary occult tumors because of superior soft tissue contrast and options for functional imaging (perfusion, diffusion), e.g. investigation of breast carcinoma or prostate carcinoma.

Practical recommendations

Whole body staging stands at the beginning of the diagnostic algorithm in CUP syndrome to localize a potential primary tumor. Clinically, contrast-enhanced CT of the neck, thorax and abdomen is frequently applied; however, many studies have demonstrated augmented sensitivity of 18F-FDG PET-CT for the detection of primary tumors and metastatic tumor manifestations.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Pavlidis N, Briasoulis E, Hainsworth J et al (2003) Diagnostic and therapeutic management of cancer of an unknown primary. Eur J Cancer 39:1990–2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Muir C (1995) Cancer of unknown primary site. Cancer 75:353–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van de Wouw AJ, Janssen-Heijnen ML, Coebergh JW et al (2002) Epidemiology of unknown primary tumours; incidence and population-based survival of 1285 patients in Southeast Netherlands, 1984–1992. Eur J Cancer 38:409–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. CancerStats UK 2010 monograph. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerinfo/cancer stats/incidence/commoncancers/

  5. Abbruzzese JL, Abbruzzese MC, Hess KR et al (1994) Unknown primary carcinoma: natural history and prognostic factors in 657 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol 12:1272–1280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaw PH, Adams R, Jordan C et al (2007) A clinical review of the investigation and management of carcinoma of unknown primary in a single cancer network. Clin Oncol 19:87–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Varadhachary GR, Raber MN, Matamoros A et al (2008) Carcinoma of unknown primary with a colon-cancer profile-changing paradigm and emerging definitions. Lancet Oncol 9:596–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pavlidis N, Pentheroudakis G (2012) Cancer of unknown primary site. Lancet 379:1428–1435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pavlidis N, Fizazi K (2009) Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 69:271–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Abbruzzese JL, Abbruzzese MC, Lenzi R et al (1995) Analysis of a diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected tumors of unknown origin. J Clin Oncol 13:2094–2103

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Losa Gaspa F, Germa JR, Albareda JM et al (2002) Metastatic cancer presentation. Validation of a diagnostic algorithm with 221 consecutive patients. Rev Clin Esp 202:313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 44:1301–1314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kwee TC, Kwee RM (2009) Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 19:731–744

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Latief KH, White CS, Protopapas Z et al (1997) Search for a primary lung neoplasm in patients with brain metastasis: is the chest radiograph sufficient? AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:1339–1344

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pavlidis N (2007) Forty years experience of treating cancer of unknown primary. Acta Oncol 46:592–601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stella GM, Senetta R, Cassenti A et al (2012) Cancers of unknown primary origin: current perspectives and future therapeutic strategies. J Transl Med 10:12

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaufmann O, Fietze E, Dietel M (2002) Immunohistochemical diagnosis in cancer metastasis of unknown primary tumor. Pathologe 23:183–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hewitt MJ, Hall GD, Wilkinson N et al (2006) Image-guided biopsy in women with breast cancer presenting with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16(Suppl 1):108–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS et al (2003) Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 290:3199–3206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buchanan CL, Morris EA, Dorn PL et al (2005) Utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 12:1045–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Orel SG, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD et al (1999) Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology 212:543–549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmidt GP, Haug A, Reiser MF et al (2010) Whole-body MRI and FDG-PET/CT imaging diagnostics in oncology. Radiologe 50:329–338

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kruger DG, Riederer SJ, Grimm RC et al (2002) Continuously moving table data acquisition method for long FOV contrast-enhanced MRA and whole-body MRI. Magn Reson Med 47:224–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Koeninger A et al (2010) Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:1077–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Usuda K, Sagawa M, Motono N et al (2013) Advantages of diffusion-weighted imaging over positron emission tomography-computed tomography in assessment of hilar and mediastinal lymph node in lung cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 20:1676–1683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Herzog P et al (2005) High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance image tumor staging with the use of parallel imaging versus dual-modality positron emission tomography-computed tomography: experience on a 32-channel system. Invest Radiol 40:743–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Frericks BB, Meyer BC, Martus P et al (2008) MRI of the thorax during whole-body MRI: evaluation of different MR sequences and comparison to thoracic multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). J Magn Reson Imaging 27:538–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bottcher J, Hansch A, Pfeil A et al (2013) Detection and classification of different liver lesions: comparison of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI versus multiphasic spiral CT in a clinical single centre investigation. Eur J Radiol 82:1860–1869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A et al (2011) MRI of the prostate: clinical relevance and emerging applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:258–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M et al (2014) The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level-Can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol 32(1):45.e17–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thompson J, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M et al (2013) The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 112(Suppl 2):6–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. De Bresser J, De Vos B, van der Ent F et al (2010) Breast MRI in clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer presenting with an axillary metastasis: a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:114–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ashraf M, Biswas J, Jha J et al (2011) Clinical utility and prospective comparison of ultrasonography and computed tomography imaging in staging of neck metastases in head and neck squamous cell cancer in an Indian setup. Int J Clin Oncol 16:686–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mizrachi A, Feinmesser R, Bachar G et al (2013) Value of ultrasound in detecting central compartment lymph node metastases in differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. [Epub ahead of print]

  35. Schipper RJ, Van Roozendaal LM, De Vries B et al (2013) Axillary ultrasound for preoperative nodal staging in breast cancer patients: is it of added value? Breast 22:1108–1113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Delorme S (2012) Ultrasound in oncology: screening and staging. Internist (Berl) 53:271–281

  37. Rubaltelli L, Beltrame V, Scagliori E et al (2013) Potential use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the detection of metastatic superficial lymph nodes in melanoma patients. Ultraschall Med. [Epub ahead of print]

  38. Kirsten F, Chi CH, Leary JA et al (1987) Metastatic adeno or undifferentiated carcinoma from an unknown primary site – natural history and guidelines for identification of treatable subsets. Q J Med 62:143–161

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stevens KJ, Smith SL, Denley H et al (1999) Is mammography of value in women with disseminated cancer of unknown origin? Clin Oncol 11:90–92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Taylor MB, Bromham NR, Arnold SE (2012) Carcinoma of unknown primary: key radiological issues from the recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines. Br J Radiol 85:661–671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schramm N, Rominger A, Schmidt C et al (2013) Detection of underlying malignancy in patients with paraneoplastic neurological syndromes: comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1014–1024

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. C.C. Cyran weist auf folgende Beziehung hin: Speakers Bureau Bayer Healthcare. P.M. Kazmierczak, K. Nikolaou, A. Rominger, A. Graser, M.F. Reiser geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Klinische Radiologie, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland

    P.M. Kazmierczak, K. Nikolaou, A. Graser, M.F. Reiser &  C.C. Cyran MD

  2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Campus Großhadern, München, Deutschland

    A. Rominger

Authors
  1. P.M. Kazmierczak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Nikolaou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Rominger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Graser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M.F. Reiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C.C. Cyran MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C.C. Cyran MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kazmierczak, P., Nikolaou, K., Rominger, A. et al. Radiologische Diagnostik des CUP-Syndroms. Radiologe 54, 117–123 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-013-2547-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-013-2547-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation