| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Clinical Investigations |
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Pratt Foundation Statistical Centre, and Division of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
After potentially curative therapy of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), masses or symptoms suggestive of relapse are common but may be difficult to characterize. Early detection is important because salvage therapies are available for localized recurrence. This study evaluated whether 18F-FDG PET is useful and predictive of outcome in this setting. Methods: For 63 consecutive patients with suspected relapse >6 mo after definitive treatment of NSCLC, the apparent extent of disease on conventional restaging was compared with that on FDG PET. Patients with already confirmed systemic metastases were excluded unless locally aggressive treatment of these was being considered. Serial imaging and pathologic results were obtained during a median follow-up of 19 mo to validate diagnostic findings. Prognostic significance was tested using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: PET had positive findings in 41 of 42 patients with confirmed relapse (sensitivity, 98%). No disease was evident during a minimum follow-up of 12 mo in 14 of 15 patients with clinically suspected relapse but negative PET findings (negative predictive value, 93%). PET induced a major management change in 40 patients (63%), including 6 whose treatment was changed from curative to palliative, 3 whose treatment was changed from palliative to curative, and 9 for whom negative PET findings prevented active management. Both the presence (P = 0.012) and the extent (P < 0.0001) of relapse on PET were highly significant prognostic factors. There was also significant prognostic stratification based on the treatment delivered after the PET study (P = 0.011), but after adjustment for this treatment, PET status remained highly predictive of survival. Conclusion: PET better assesses the status of disease and stratifies prognosis than does conventional staging, affects patient management, and should be incorporated into paradigms for suspected recurrence of NSCLC.
Key Words: lung cancer • FDG • recurrence • PET
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. B. Lobrano Partnerships in Oncology and Radiology: The Role of Radiology in the Detection, Staging, and Follow-up of Lung Cancer Oncologist, July 1, 2006; 11(7): 774 - 779. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Bunyaviroch and R. E. Coleman PET Evaluation of Lung Cancer J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2006; 47(3): 451 - 469. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. J. Kelloff, J. M. Hoffman, B. Johnson, H. I. Scher, B. A. Siegel, E. Y. Cheng, B. D. Cheson, J. O'Shaughnessy, K. Z. Guyton, D. A. Mankoff, et al. Progress and Promise of FDG-PET Imaging for Cancer Patient Management and Oncologic Drug Development Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2005; 11(8): 2785 - 2808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. C. Detterbeck, J. F. Vansteenkiste, D. E. Morris, C. A. Dooms, A. H. Khandani, and M. A. Socinski Seeking a Home for a PET, Part 3: Emerging Applications of Positron Emission Tomography Imaging in the Management of Patients With Lung Cancer Chest, November 1, 2004; 126(5): 1656 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Schrevens, N. Lorent, C. Dooms, and J. Vansteenkiste The Role of PET Scan in Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Oncologist, November 1, 2004; 9(6): 633 - 643. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. Keidar, N. Haim, L. Guralnik, M. Wollner, R. Bar-Shalom, A. Ben-Nun, and O. Israel PET/CT Using 18F-FDG in Suspected Lung Cancer Recurrence: Diagnostic Value and Impact on Patient Management J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2004; 45(10): 1640 - 1646. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. K. Buck, G. Glatting, and S. N. Reske Quantification of 18F-FDG Uptake in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Feasible Prognostic Marker? J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2004; 45(8): 1274 - 1276. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. B. Eubank, D. Mankoff, M. Bhattacharya, J. Gralow, H. Linden, G. Ellis, S. Lindsley, M. Austin-Seymour, and R. Livingston Impact of FDG PET on Defining the Extent of Disease and on the Treatment of Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2004; 183(2): 479 - 486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. G. Pfister, D. H. Johnson, C. G. Azzoli, W. Sause, T. J. Smith, S. Baker Jr, J. Olak, D. Stover, J. R. Strawn, A. T. Turrisi, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Treatment of Unresectable Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Guideline: Update 2003 J. Clin. Oncol., January 15, 2004; 22(2): 330 - 353. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Mac Manus, R. J. Hicks, J. P. Matthews, A. McKenzie, D. Rischin, E. K. Salminen, and D. L. Ball Positron Emission Tomography Is Superior to Computed Tomography Scanning for Response-Assessment After Radical Radiotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., April 1, 2003; 21(7): 1285 - 1292. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Stevens, P. F.A. Bakker, N. J.J. Schlosser, P. P. van Rijk, and J. M.H. de Klerk Use of a Dual-Head Coincidence Camera and 18F-FDG for Detection and Nodal Staging of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Accuracy as Determined by 2 Independent Observers J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2003; 44(3): 336 - 340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Kostakoglu, H. Agress Jr, and S. J. Goldsmith Clinical Role of FDG PET in Evaluation of Cancer Patients RadioGraphics, March 1, 2003; 23(2): 315 - 340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY | THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE |
