Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Performance of intra-procedural 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT-guided biopsies for lesions suspected of malignancy but poorly visualized with other modalities

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We sought to evaluate the safety and the diagnostic success rate of percutaneous biopsies performed under intra-procedural 18 F-deoxyglucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) guidance for lesions difficult to see with conventional cross-sectional imaging.

Methods

From 2011 to 2013, consecutive clinically indicated percutaneous PET/CT-guided biopsies of 106 masses (mean size, 3.3 cm; range, 0.7–15.9 cm; SD, 2.9 cm) in bones (n = 33), liver (n = 26), soft tissues (n = 18), lung (n = 15) and abdomen (n = 14) were reviewed. The biopsy procedures were performed following injection of a mean of 255 MBq (SD, 74) FDG. Mean maximal standardized uptake value (SUV) of lesions was 8.8 (SD, 6.3). A systematic review of the histopathological results and outcomes was performed.

Results

Biopsies were positive for malignancy in 76 cases (71.7 %, 76/106) and for benign tissue in 30 cases (28.3 %, 30/106). Immediate results were considered adequate for 100 PET/CT biopsies (94.3 %, 100/106) requiring no further exploration, and for the six others (5.7 %, 6/106) benign diagnoses were confirmed after surgery (n = 4) or follow-up (n = 2). The consequent overall sensitivity and the diagnostic success of biopsy were therefore 100 %. No significant differences in terms of detection of malignancy were observed between the different locations. Lesions > 2 cm or with SUV > 4 were not significantly more likely to be malignant. Complications occurred after four biopsies (3.7 %, 4/106).

Conclusion

Intra-procedural PET/CT guidance appears as a safe and effective method and allows high diagnostic success of percutaneous biopsies for metabolically active lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Huch K, Roderer G, Ulmar B, Reichel H. CT-guided interventions in orthopedics. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127:677–83. doi:10.1007/s00402-007-0410-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lis E, Bilsky MH, Pisinski L, Boland P, Healey JH, O’Malley B, et al. Percutaneous CT-guided biopsy of osseous lesion of the spine in patients with known or suspected malignancy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25:1583–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hiraki T, Mimura H, Gobara H, Iguchi T, Fujiwara H, Sakurai J, et al. CT fluoroscopy-guided biopsy of 1,000 pulmonary lesions performed with 20-gauge coaxial cutting needles: diagnostic yield and risk factors for diagnostic failure. Chest. 2009;136:1612–7. doi:10.1378/chest.09-0370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lechevallier E, Andre M, Barriol D, Daniel L, Eghazarian C, De Fromont M, et al. Fine-needle percutaneous biopsy of renal masses with helical CT guidance. Radiology. 2000;216:506–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Monfardini L, Preda L, Aurilio G, Rizzo S, Bagnardi V, Renne G, et al. Ct-guided bone biopsy in cancer patients with suspected bone metastases: retrospective review of 308 procedures. Radiol Med. 2014. doi:10.1007/s11547-014-0401-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Welch TJ, Sheedy 2nd PF, Johnson CD, Johnson CM, Stephens DH. CT-guided biopsy: prospective analysis of 1,000 procedures. Radiology. 1989;171:493–6. doi:10.1148/radiology.171.2.2704815.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shyn PB, Tatli S, Sahni VA, Sadow CA, Forgione K, Mauri G, et al. PET/CT-guided percutaneous liver mass biopsies and ablations: targeting accuracy of a single 20 s breath-hold PET acquisition. Clin Radiol. 2014. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2013.11.013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stattaus J, Kuehl H, Ladd S, Schroeder T, Antoch G, Baba HA, et al. CT-guided biopsy of small liver lesions: visibility, artifacts, and corresponding diagnostic accuracy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30:928–35. doi:10.1007/s00270-007-9023-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoon SH, Lee JM, So YH, Hong SH, Kim SJ, Han JK, et al. Multiphasic MDCT enhancement pattern of hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than 3 cm in diameter: tumor size and cellular differentiation. AJR. 2009;193:482–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jung EM, Friedrich C, Hoffstetter P, Dendl LM, Klebl F, Agha A, et al. Volume navigation with contrast enhanced ultrasound and image fusion for percutaneous interventions: first results. PLoS One. 2012;7:e33956. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033956.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tatli S, Gerbaudo VH, Feeley CM, Shyn PB, Tuncali K, Silverman SG. PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy of abdominal masses: initial experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:507–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Klaeser B, Wiederkehr O, Koeberle D, Mueller A, Bubeck B, Thuerlimann B. 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 Oncol. 2007;18:1329–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Klaeser B, Mueller MD, Schmid RA, Guevara C, Krause T, Wiskirchen J. PET-CT-guided interventions in the management of FDG-positive lesions in patients suffering from solid malignancies: initial experiences. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:1780–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoffman JM, Gambhir SS. Molecular imaging: the vision and opportunity for radiology in the future. Radiology. 2007;244:39–47. doi:10.1148/radiol.2441060773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bitencourt AG, Tyng CJ, Pinto PN, Almeida MF, Meyrellis LC, Pinheiro RP, et al. Percutaneous biopsy based on PET/CT findings in cancer patients: technique, indications, and results. Clin Nucl Med. 2012;37:e95–7. doi:10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182443b78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yokoyama K, Ikeda O, Kawanaka K, Nakasone Y, Tamura Y, Inoue S, et al. Comparison of CT-guided percutaneous biopsy with and without registration of prior PET/CT images to diagnose mediastinal tumors. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013. doi:10.1007/s00270-013-0793-x.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hales NW, Krempl GA, Medina JE. Is there a role for fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules? Am J Otolaryngol. 2008;29:113–8. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2007.04.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tatli S, Gerbaudo VH, Mamede M, Tuncali K, Shyn PB, Silverman SG. Abdominal masses sampled at PET/CT-guided percutaneous biopsy: initial experience with registration of prior PET/CT images. Radiology. 2010;256:305–11. doi:10.1148/radiol.10090931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ryan ER, Sofocleous CT, Schoder H, Carrasquillo JA, Nehmeh S, Larson SM, et al. Split-dose technique for FDG PET/CT-guided percutaneous ablation: a method to facilitate lesion targeting and to provide immediate assessment of treatment effectiveness. Radiology. 2013;268:288–95. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121462.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldberg SN, Grassi CJ, Cardella JF, Charboneau JW, Dodd GD, Dupuy 3rd DE, et al. Image-guided tumor ablation: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16:765–78. doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000170858.46668.65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kobayashi K, Bhargava P, Raja S, Nasseri F, Al-Balas HA, Smith DD, et al. Image-guided biopsy: what the interventional radiologist needs to know about PET/CT. Radiographics. 2012;32:1483–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nguyen ML, Gervais DA, Blake MA, Mueller PR, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, et al. Imaging-guided biopsy of (18)F-FDG-avid extrapulmonary lesions: do lesion location and morphologic features on CT affect the positive predictive value for malignancy? AJR. 2013;201:433–8. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Govindarajan MJ, Nagaraj KR, Kallur KG, Sridhar PS. PET/CT guidance for percutaneous fine needle aspiration cytology/biopsy. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009;19:208–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wood BJ, Zhang H, Durrani A, Glossop N, Ranjan S, Lindisch D, et al. Navigation with electromagnetic tracking for interventional radiology procedures: a feasibility study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16:493–505.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Krucker J, Xu S, Glossop N, Viswanathan A, Borgert J, Schulz H, et al. Electromagnetic tracking for thermal ablation and biopsy guidance: clinical evaluation of spatial accuracy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:1141–50.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Krucker J, Xu S, Venkatesan A, Locklin JK, Amalou H, Glossop N, et al. Clinical utility of real-time fusion guidance for biopsy and ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:515–24. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2010.10.033.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Herbertson RA, Lee ST, Tebbutt N, Scott AM. The expanding role of PET technology in the management of patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1774–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Piperkova E, Raphael B, Altinyay ME, Castellon I, Libes R, Sandella N, et al. Impact of PET/CT in comparison with same day contrast enhanced CT in breast cancer management. Clin Nucl Med. 2007;32:429–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Loft A, Berthelsen AK, Roed H, Ottosen C, Lundvall L, Knudsen J, et al. The diagnostic value of PET/CT scanning in patients with cervical cancer: a prospective study. Gynecol Oncol. 2007;106:29–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Fukasawa I, Inaba N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in staging ovarian cancer: comparison with enhanced CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1912–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Volker T, Denecke T, Steffen I, Misch D, Schonberger S, Plotkin M, et al. Positron emission tomography for staging of pediatric sarcoma patients: results of a prospective multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5435–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2500–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ryan ER, Thornton R, Sofocleous CT, Erinjeri JP, Hsu M, Quinn B, et al. PET/CT-guided interventions: personnel radiation dose. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:1063–7. doi:10.1007/s00270-012-0515-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4357–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mahner S, Schirrmacher S, Brenner W, Jenicke L, Habermann CR, Avril N, et al. Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1249–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ozulker T, Ozulker F, Ozbek E, Ozpacaci T. A prospective diagnostic accuracy study of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the evaluation of indeterminate renal masses. Nucl Med Commun. 32:265–72. doi:10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283442e3b.

Download references

Acknowledgments

F. Cornelis would like to acknowledge support from CHU de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, Canceropôle du Grand Sud-Ouest, Association de la Recherche Contre le Cancer, Société Française de Radiologie, Société d’Imagerie Génito-Urinaire, Philippe Foundation and the Fulbright Scholarship Program.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    F. Cornelis, M. Silk, H. Takaki, J. C. Durack, J. P. Erinjeri, C. T. Sofocleous, R. H. Siegelbaum, M. Maybody & S. B. Solomon

  2. Department of Radiology, Pellegrin Hospital, Place Amélie Raba Léon, 33076, Bordeaux, France

    F. Cornelis

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    H. Schoder

Authors
  1. F. Cornelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Silk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Schoder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Takaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. C. Durack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. P. Erinjeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. T. Sofocleous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. R. H. Siegelbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Maybody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S. B. Solomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Cornelis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cornelis, F., Silk, M., Schoder, H. et al. Performance of intra-procedural 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT-guided biopsies for lesions suspected of malignancy but poorly visualized with other modalities. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41, 2265–2272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2852-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2852-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation