Diagnostic value of PET/CT for the staging and restaging of pediatric tumors |
| |
Authors: | Margit Kleis Heike Daldrup-Link Katherine Matthay Robert Goldsby Ying Lu Tibor Schuster Carole Schreck Philip W. Chu Randall A. Hawkins Benjamin L. Franc |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Department of Radiology, University of California (UCSF), 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628, USA;(2) Department of Radiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany;(3) Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hemato-Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA;(4) Department of Pediatric Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA;(5) Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany |
| |
Abstract: | Objective The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the diagnostic value of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET)/CT versus 18F-FDG PET and CT alone for staging and restaging of pediatric solid tumors. Methods Forty-three children and adolescents (19 females and 24 males; mean age, 15.2 years; age range, 6–20 years) with osteosarcoma (n = 1), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 1), synovial sarcoma (n = 2), germ cell tumor (n = 2), neuroblastoma (n = 2), desmoid tumor (n = 2), melanoma (n = 3), rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 5), Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 7), non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (n = 9), and Ewing’s sarcoma (n = 9) who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for primary staging or follow-up of metastases were included in this study. The presence, location, and size of primary tumors was determined separately for PET/CT, PET, and CT by two experienced reviewers. The diagnosis of the primary tumor was confirmed by histopathology. The presence or absence of metastases was confirmed by histopathology (n = 62) or clinical and imaging follow-up (n = 238). Results The sensitivities for the detection of solid primary tumors using integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT (95%), 18F-FDG PET alone (73%), and CT alone (93%) were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Seventeen patients showed a total of 153 distant metastases. Integrated PET/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity for the detection of these metastases (91%) than PET alone (37%; p < 0.05), but not CT alone (83%; p > 0.05). When lesions with a diameter of less than 0.5 cm were excluded, PET/CT (89%) showed a significantly higher specificity compared to PET (45%; p < 0.05) and CT (55%; p < 0.05). In a sub-analysis of pulmonary metastases, the values for sensitivity and specificity were 90%, 14%, 82% and 63%, 78%, 65%, respectively, for integrated PET/CT, stand-alone PET, and stand-alone CT. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, 18F-FDG PET/CT, 18F-FDG PET alone, and CT alone were diagnostically correct in 83%, 61%, and 42%. A sub-analysis focusing on the ability of PET/CT, PET, and CT to detect osseous metastases showed no statistically significant difference between the three imaging modalities (p > 0.05). Conclusion Our study showed a significantly increased sensitivity of PET/CT over that of PET for the detection of distant metastases but not over that of CT alone. However, the specificity of PET/CT for the characterization of pulmonary metastases with a diameter > 0.5 cm and lymph node metastases with a diameter of <1 cm was significantly increased over that of CT alone. |
| |
Keywords: | Positron emission tomography PET-CT FDG Pediatric oncology Staging Restaging Cancer |
本文献已被 PubMed SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|