Positron emission tomography (PET) using ((18)F)2-fluoro-D-2-desoxyglucose (FDG) has been shown to be a highly sensitive and specific imaging modality in the diagnosis of primary and recurrent tumors and in the control of therapies in numerous non-urologic cancers. It was the aim of this review to validate the significance of PET as a diagnostic tool in malignant tumors of the urogenital tract. A systematic review of the current literature concerning the role of PET for malignant tumors of the kidney, testicles, prostate, and bladder was carried out. The role of FDG PET for renal cell cancer can be seen in the detection of recurrences after definitive local therapy and metastases. The higher sensitivity of PET in comparison to other therapeutic modalities (CT, ultrasound, MRI) in recurrent and metastatic renal cell cancer suggests a supplemental role of this diagnostic procedure to complement other imaging modalities.The clinical value of PET is established for the identification of vital tumor tissue after chemotherapy of seminomatous germ cell tumors. This diagnostic method has little significance for primary tumor staging and diagnosis of non-seminomatous germ cell tumor because of the high probability of false-negative results in adult teratomas. FDG PET is not sensitive enough in the diagnosis of primary or recurrent tumors in prostate or bladder cancer. Also PET did not prove to be superior to conventional bone scintigram in the detection of mostly osteoblastic metastases in prostate cancer. The recent use of alternative tracers, which are partly not eliminated by urinary secretion (acetate, choline) has increased the sensitivity and specificity of PET also in this tumor entity so that further clinical investigations are needed to validate these technical modifications in their significance for this imaging modality. PET appears to be sufficiently evaluated only for the diagnostic follow-up of patients with seminomatous germ cell tumors after chemotherapy to regard it is the diagnostic tool of first choice. For all other tumors of the urogenital tract this proof is still awaited.