HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS 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 Related articles in JNM 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Metser, U. Articles by Even-Sapir, E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Metser, U. Articles by Even-Sapir, E.

Solid Splenic Masses: Evaluation with ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT

¹ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
² Department of Radiology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel
³ Department of Gastroenterology, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Our objective was to assess the role of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of solid splenic masses in patients with a known malignancy and in incidentally found lesions in patients without known malignancy. Methods: Two groups of patients were assessed: (a) 68 patients with known malignancy and a focal lesion on PET or a solid mass on CT portions of the PET/CT study; and (b) 20 patients with solid splenic masses on conventional imaging without known malignancy. The standard of reference was histology (n = 16) or imaging and clinical follow-up (n = 72). The lesion size, the presence of a single versus multiple splenic lesions, and the intensity of ¹⁸F-FDG uptake expressed as a standardized uptake value (SUV) were recorded. The ratio of the SUV in the splenic lesion to the background normal splenic uptake was also calculated. These parameters were compared between benign and malignant lesions within each of the 2 groups of patients and between the 2 groups. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating benign from malignant solid splenic lesions in patients with and without malignant disease were 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% versus 100%, 83%, 80%, and 100%, respectively. In patients with known malignant disease, an SUV threshold of 2.3 correctly differentiated benign from malignant lesions with the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. In patients without known malignant disease, false-positive results were due to granulomatous diseases (n = 2). Conclusion: ¹⁸F-FDG PET can reliably discriminate between benign and malignant solid splenic masses in patients with known ¹⁸F-FDG–avid malignancy. It also appears to have a high NPV in patients with solid splenic masses, without known malignant disease. ¹⁸F-FDG–avid splenic masses in patients without a known malignancy should be further evaluated as, in our series, 80% of them were malignant.

Key Words: hematology • oncology • FDG • PET/CT • spleen

Related articles in JNM:

THIS MONTH IN JNM

JNM 2005 46: 8a-9a. [Full Text]  

Radiologic-Pathologic Correlations from Head to Toe: Understanding the Manifestations of Disease

N.C. Gourtsoyiannis, P.R. Ros, and Usha A. Joseph
JNM 2005 46: 1937. [Full Text]