HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dizendorf, E. V. Articles by Steinert, H. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dizendorf, E. V. Articles by Steinert, H. C.

Impact of Whole-Body ¹⁸F-FDG PET on Staging and Managing Patients for Radiation Therapy

¹ Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
² Clinic for Radiation Oncology, Department of Medical Radiology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland

Whole-body PET with ¹⁸F-FDG has proven to be a very effective imaging modality for staging of malignant tumors. This study was performed to evaluate the impact of ¹⁸F-FDG PET on staging and managing patients for radiation therapy. Methods: The treatment records of 202 consecutive patients (98 male, 104 female; mean age, 56.9 y; age range, 8–91 y) with different malignant tumors were reviewed. Radiation therapy was intended for all patients. The diagnoses were head and neck tumors (n = 55), gynecologic tumors (n = 28), breast cancer (n = 28), lung cancer (n = 26), malignant lymphomas (n = 24), tumors of the gastrointestinal tract (n = 18), and others (n = 23). Whole-body PET was performed before radiation therapy. The alteration of PET on each patient’s staging and management decisions for radiation therapy were determined. Results: For 55 of 202 patients (27%), PET results changed the patients’ management in radiation therapy. In 18 cases (9%), PET resulted in a cancellation of radiation therapy because of the detection of previously unknown distant metastases (8 patients), additional lymph node metastases (9 patients), residual tumor (6 patients), or the exclusion of active disease (2 patients). In 6 patients, >1 incremental reason was found for cancellation. In 21 PET examinations (10%), PET results changed the intention of radiation treatment (curative or palliative). The radiation dose was changed in 25 cases (12%). A change of radiation volume was necessary in 12 patients (6%). Conclusion: The results of this study show that ¹⁸F-FDG PET has a major impact on the management of patients for radiation therapy, influencing both the stage and the management in 27% of patients.

Key Words: ¹⁸F-FDG PET • radiation management • radiation therapy • tumor staging

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. A. Herbertson, S. T. Lee, N. Tebbutt, and A. M. Scott The expanding role of PET technology in the management of patients with colorectal cancer Ann. Onc., November 1, 2007; 18(11): 1774 - 1781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B Klaeser, O Wiederkehr, D Koeberle, A Mueller, B Bubeck, and B Thuerlimann Therapeutic impact of 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the pre- and postoperative staging of patients with clinically intermediate or high-risk breast cancer Ann. Onc., August 1, 2007; 18(8): 1329 - 1334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Blodgett, C. C. Meltzer, and D. W. Townsend PET/CT: Form and Function Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 360 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K Newbold, M Partridge, G Cook, S A Sohaib, E Charles-Edwards, P Rhys-Evans, K Harrington, and C Nutting Advanced imaging applied to radiotherapy planning in head and neck cancer: a clinical review. Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2006; 79(943): 554 - 561. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. M. Blodgett, M. B. Fukui, C. H. Snyderman, B. F. Branstetter IV, B. M. McCook, D. W. Townsend, and C. C. Meltzer Combined PET-CT in the Head and Neck: Part 1. Physiologic, Altered Physiologic, and Artifactual FDG Uptake RadioGraphics, July 1, 2005; 25(4): 897 - 912. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Schwartz, J. Rajendran, B. Yueh, M. D. Coltrera, M. LeBlanc, J. Eary, and K. Krohn FDG-PET Prediction of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer Outcomes Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, December 1, 2004; 130(12): 1361 - 1367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Antoch, L. S. Freudenberg, T. Beyer, A. Bockisch, and J. F. Debatin To Enhance or Not to Enhance? 18F-FDG and CT Contrast Agents in Dual-Modality 18F-FDG PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2004; 45(90010): 56S - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. W. Goerres, G. K. von Schulthess, and H. C. Steinert Why Most PET of Lung and Head-and-Neck Cancer Will Be PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2004; 45(90010): 66S - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. M. Kamel, D. Zwahlen, M. T. Wyss, K. D. Stumpe, G. K. von Schulthess, and H. C. Steinert Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET Improves the Management of Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2003; 44(12): 1911 - 1917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. J. Hicks and M. P. Mac Manus 18F-FDG PET in Candidates for Radiation Therapy: Is It Important and How Do We Validate Its Impact? J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2003; 44(1): 30 - 32. [Full Text] [PDF]