Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleSpecial Contribution

Impact of 18F-FDG PET Used After Initial Treatment of Cancer: Comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 Cohorts

Bruce E. Hillner, Barry A. Siegel, Lucy Hanna, Anthony F. Shields, Fenghai Duan, Ilana F. Gareen, Bruce Quinn and R. Edward Coleman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (5) 831-837; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.103911
Bruce E. Hillner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Barry A. Siegel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucy Hanna
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony F. Shields
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fenghai Duan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ilana F. Gareen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce Quinn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. Edward Coleman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Impact on management after PET for chemotherapy monitoring stratified by post-PET prognosis. Data are shown for patients undergoing PET for chemotherapy monitoring in NOPR 2006 (n = 10,234) or NOPR 2009 (n = 15,609) for any cancer type. Intended plans for other imaging or biopsy, which accounted for about 5% of cases, were excluded for clarity.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Clinical Characteristics of NOPR Cohorts

    Restaging or suspected recurrence
    Age < 65 yAge > 65 yChemotherapy monitoring, all ages
    NOPR interval cohort2006*2009*2006200920062009
    Patients (n)3,0515,91626,55146,68210,23415,611
    Age (y)
     Mean53.755.074.975.172.372.2
     25%–75% range49–6151–6270–7970–8068–7868–78
    Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status
     Asymptomatic; performance status = 0 (%)986 (32.3)2,107 (35.6)10,433 (39.3)18,290 (39.2)2,197 (21.5)2,929 (18.8)
     Symptomatic, fully ambulatory; performance status = 1 (%)1,601 (52.5)3,108 (52.5)12,835 (48.3)23,213 (49.7)6,226 (60.8)9,996 (64.0)
     Performance status = 2, 3, or 4 (%)464 (15.2)701 (11.8)3,283 (12.4)5,179 (11.1)1,811 (17.7)2,686 (17.2)
    Summary stage†
     No or low probability of disease recurrence1,568 (51.4)3,190 (53.9)12,283 (46.3)21,834 (46.8)1,514 (14.8)2,179 (14.0)
     Local or nodal recurrence392 (12.8)651 (11.0)3,546 (13.4)5,793 (12.4)1,332 (13.0)1,736 (11.1)
     Metastatic disease1,091 (35.8)2,075 (35.1)10,721 (40.4)19,055 (40.8)6,431 (62.8)10,323 (66.1)
     Stage unknown––––957 (9.4)1,373 (8.8)
    • ↵* NOPR 2006 patients from May 6, 2006, to April 3, 2009. NOPR 2009 patients from April 6, 2009, to December 29, 2011.

    • ↵† Summary stage for restaging or suspected recurrence was collected before PET. Stage for chemotherapy monitoring is after PET.

    • Data in parentheses are percentages.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Impact of PET on Intended Management for Restaging

    Time periodAge (y)Patients (n)Nontreatment to treatment (%)Treatment to nontreatment (%)Change in management (%)95% confidence intervalImaging-adjusted impact (%)*95% confidence interval
    2006<653,05125.78.033.732.0–35.415.214.0–16.5
    ≥6527,86027.78.135.835.3–36.415.114.7–15.6
    All ages30,91127.58.135.635.1–36.215.114.7–15.5
    2009<655,91627.55.933.432.2–34.712.111.2–12.9
    ≥6548,83129.96.035.935.4–36.312.612.3–12.9
    All ages54,74729.66.035.635.2–36.012.612.3–12.8
    • ↵* Imaging-adjusted impact: No benefit from PET was assumed for cases with a plan before PET of alternative imaging.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Impact of PET on Intended Management for Restaging in Patients Older Than 65 Years

    CancerTime periodPatients (n)Nontreatment to treatment (%)Treatment to nontreatment (%)Change in management (%)95% confidence intervalImaging-adjusted impact (%)*95% confidence interval
    Bladder20063,32228.27.936.134.5–37.816.014.8–17.3
    20095,53929.45.935.334.0–36.612.811.9–13.7
    Kidney20063,06824.87.332.130.5–33.814.413.2–15.7
    20094,70827.25.833.031.6–34.412.711.7–13.6
    Pancreas20062,87631.68.640.238.4–42.016.515.1–17.9
    20094,23834.25.840.038.6–41.512.911.9–13.9
    Prostate20064,85627.710.237.836.5–39.216.015.0–17.0
    20095,46534.47.041.440.0–42.713.412.5–14.3
    Small cell lung20062,81033.07.840.738.9–42.615.213.9–16.5
    20095,40334.45.840.238.9–41.512.711.8–13.6
    Stomach20062,28123.18.131.229.3–33.112.911.5–14.3
    20093,16226.06.432.430.8–34.011.910.8–13.0
    Uterus20063,36726.47.533.832.2–35.514.813.6–16.0
    20094,85029.25.534.733.3–36.012.511.6–13.5
    All other cancers20065,28027.27.034.333.0–35.614.613.7–15.6
    200915,46627.65.833.432.7–34.212.411.9–12.9
    Total200627,86027.78.135.835.3–36.415.114.7–15.6
    200948,83129.96.035.935.4–36.312.612.3–12.9
    • ↵* Imaging-adjusted impact: No benefit from PET was assumed for cases with a plan before PET of alternative imaging.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    Impact of PET on Intended Management During Chemotherapy Monitoring

    Continue therapySwitch therapyAdjust therapyImageStop therapy
    CancerTime periodPatients (n)n%n%n%n%n%
    Bladder20061,08928326.031028.515614.3726.626824.6
    20091,47963542.939927.0865.8674.529219.7
    Kidney20061,07542039.125723.916815.6575.317316.1
    20091,9341,01552.547824.71065.5924.824312.6
    Pancreas20061,78372040.447826.827115.2814.523313.1
    20092,1981,10350.255025.01516.9984.529613.5
    Prostate20061,02434834.026125.514514.2696.720119.6
    20091,33655241.340230.11047.8896.718914.1
    Small cell lung20061,34841530.838928.920715.4604.527720.5
    20092,0831,00948.450324.11014.8743.639619.0
    Uterus200681824730.226031.810112.3485.916219.8
    20091,11345540.931328.1716.4454.122820.5
    All other cancer20062,10076036.253825.629013.81105.240219.1
    20094,3872,04746.71,12125.62846.51984.573716.8
    Total cases200610,2343,55434.72,73526.71,49214.65525.41,90118.6
    200915,6117,31546.94,04925.99766.37224.62,54716.3
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 53 (5)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 53, Issue 5
May 1, 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Impact of 18F-FDG PET Used After Initial Treatment of Cancer: Comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 Cohorts
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Impact of 18F-FDG PET Used After Initial Treatment of Cancer: Comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 Cohorts
Bruce E. Hillner, Barry A. Siegel, Lucy Hanna, Anthony F. Shields, Fenghai Duan, Ilana F. Gareen, Bruce Quinn, R. Edward Coleman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (5) 831-837; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103911

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Impact of 18F-FDG PET Used After Initial Treatment of Cancer: Comparison of the National Oncologic PET Registry 2006 and 2009 Cohorts
Bruce E. Hillner, Barry A. Siegel, Lucy Hanna, Anthony F. Shields, Fenghai Duan, Ilana F. Gareen, Bruce Quinn, R. Edward Coleman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2012, 53 (5) 831-837; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.103911
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • A Broader Importance of NOPR to the Future of Nuclear Imaging
  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Future of Nuclear Medicine as an Independent Specialty
  • Proceedings: Pathways for Successful Translation of New Imaging Agents and Modalities--Phase III Studies
  • Impact on Patient Management of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Used for Cancer Diagnosis: Analysis of Data From the National Oncologic PET Registry
  • 18F-Fluoride PET Used for Treatment Monitoring of Systemic Cancer Therapy: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry
  • Follow-up or Surveillance 18F-FDG PET/CT and Survival Outcome in Lung Cancer Patients
  • Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET on Intended Management of Patients with Cancers Other Than Prostate Cancer: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry
  • Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET in Patients with Known Prostate Cancer: Initial Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry
  • Intended Versus Inferred Care After PET Performed for Initial Staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry
  • A Broader Importance of NOPR to the Future of Nuclear Imaging
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Theranostics in Perspective: White Paper
  • Computational Nuclear Oncology Toward Precision Radiopharmaceutical Therapies: Ethical, Regulatory, and Socioeconomic Dimensions of Theranostic Digital Twins
  • Consensus Nomenclature for Radionuclide Therapy: Initial Recommendations from Nuclear Medicine Global Initiative
Show more Special Contribution

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire