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

This Article 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 Schöder, H. Articles by Gönen, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schöder, H. Articles by Gönen, M.

Screening for Cancer with PET and PET/CT: Potential and Limitations

¹ Department of Radiology/Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and ² Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Heiko Schöder, MD, Department of Radiology/Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., Box 77, New York, NY 10021. E-mail: schoderh{at}mskcc.org

Screening for cancer remains a very emotional and hotly debated issue in contemporary medical practice. An analysis of published data reveals a multitude of opinions based on a limited amount of reliable data. Even for breast cancer screening, which is now widely practiced in the United States and many European countries, there is continuing controversy regarding the appropriate age limits for screening mammography and, in fact, concerning the value of mammography itself. Similarly, there is no agreement as to whether screening for lung or prostate cancer is meaningful as currently practiced. Recommendations and decisions regarding cancer screening should be based on reliable data, not good intention, assumptions, or speculation. Therefore, we first explain the underlying principles and premises of screening and then briefly discuss current controversies regarding screening for breast, prostate, and lung cancers. Recently, some authors advocated CT, PET, or PET/CT for whole-body screening without support from reliable data. We discuss the potential financial, legal, and radiation safety implications associated with whole-body CT or PET cancer screening. We conclude from the available data that neither CT nor PET/CT cancer screening is currently warranted. Far from providing a desirable binary answer (presence of absence of cancer), in nonselected populations the procedures frequently yield equivocal or indeterminate findings that require further evaluation, with associated costs and potential complications. The clinical and statistical relevance of occasionally detected cancers is likely too low to justify population-wide screening efforts with these 2 imaging modalities. Ultimately, the true utility, or lack thereof, of PET and PET/CT for cancer screening can be assessed only in a prospective randomized trial. Because of prohibitive costs and the required length of follow-up, it is unlikely that such a trial will ever be conducted. Rather than spending time and resources on screening studies, medical practitioners should continue using whole-body PET/CT for diagnosing, staging, and restaging cancer and for monitoring treatment effects. Researchers should also investigate the utility of whole-body PET/CT for the surveillance of selected groups of patients who have cancer, who have completed curative treatment, but who remain at high risk for recurrent disease.

Key Words: cancer screening • PET • PET/CT

COPYRIGHT © 2006 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Nishizawa, S. Kojima, S. Teramukai, M. Inubushi, H. Kodama, Y. Maeda, H. Okada, B. Zhou, Y. Nagai, and M. Fukushima Prospective Evaluation of Whole-Body Cancer Screening With Multiple Modalities Including [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in a Healthy Population: A Preliminary Report J. Clin. Oncol., April 10, 2009; 27(11): 1767 - 1773. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. F. Reinking and M. M. Osman Prospective Evaluation of Physiologic Uptake Detected with True Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET/CT in Healthy Subjects J. Nucl. Med. Technol., March 1, 2009; 37(1): 31 - 37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Fasola, O. Belvedere, M. Aita, T. Zanin, A. Follador, P. Cassetti, S. Meduri, V. De Pangher, G. Pignata, V. Rosolen, et al. Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer and Pleural Mesothelioma in an Asbestos-Exposed Population: Baseline Results of a Prospective, Nonrandomized Feasibility Trial An Alpe-Adria Thoracic Oncology Multidisciplinary Group Study (ATOM 002) Oncologist, October 1, 2007; 12(10): 1215 - 1224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Czernin and H. R. Schelbert Introduction J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 2S - 3S. [Full Text] [PDF]