COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Integrated fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT compared to standard contrast-enhanced CT for characterization and staging of pulmonary tumors eligible for surgical resection.

Acta Radiologica 2008 November
BACKGROUND: Accurate staging is necessary to determine the appropriate therapy in patients with lung cancer. Few studies have compared integrated fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced CT in the characterization and staging of pulmonary tumors considered eligible for surgical resection.

PURPOSE: To compare 18F-FDG PET/CT with standard contrast-enhanced CT for the diagnosis and staging of lung neoplasms eligible for surgical resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy-six consecutive patients (56 male, 20 female; mean age+/-SD, 63.4+/-20 years) with 84 pulmonary tumors suspected for malignancy and considered eligible for surgical resection were prospectively enrolled. Seventy-three malignant (65 non-small-cell lung carcinomas, one small-cell lung cancer, two carcinoids, and five metastases) and 11 benign lung tumors (three hamartomas, two sarcoidosis, one amyloidosis, one Wegener granulomatosis, one tuberculosis, and three areas of scarring) were finally diagnosed by histology. Tumor staging was based on the revised American Joint Committee on Cancer.

RESULTS: In lesion characterization, the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT were 90% vs. 83% and 18% vs. 63% (P<0.05, McNemar test), respectively. In nodal staging, the sensitivity and specificity of 18F-FDG PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT were 78% vs. 46% and 80% vs. 93% (P<0.05), respectively.

CONCLUSION: In patients with lung neoplasms considered eligible for surgical resection, (18)F-FDG PET/CT versus contrast-enhanced CT revealed higher sensitivity in nodal staging, but lower specificity both in lesion characterization and nodal staging.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app