We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
¹²³I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT versus ¹⁸F-FDG PET in paediatric neuroblastoma.
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2011 September
PURPOSE: To analyse different uptake patterns in (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT imaging and (18)F-FDG PET in paediatric neuroblastoma patients.
METHODS: We compared 23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy scans and 23 (18)F-FDG PET scans (mean interval 10 days) in 19 patients with a suspected neuroblastic tumour (16 neuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroma and 1 opsomyoclonus syndrome). SPECT images of the abdomen or other tumour-affected regions were available in all patients. Indications for (18)F-FDG PET were a (123)I-MIBG-negative tumour, a discrepancy in (123)I-MIBG uptake compared to the morphological imaging or imaging results inconsistent with clinical findings. A lesion was found by (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and/or (18)F-FDG PET and/or morphological imaging.
RESULTS: A total of 58 suspicious lesions (mean lesion diameter 3.8 cm) were evaluated and 18 were confirmed by histology and 40 by clinical follow-up. The sensitivities of (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET were 50% and 78% and the specificities were 75% and 92%, respectively. False-positive results (three (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, one (18)F-FDG PET) were due to physiological uptake or posttherapy changes. False-negative results (23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, 10 (18)F-FDG PET) were due to low uptake and small lesion size. Combined (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/(18)F-FDG PET imaging showed the highest sensitivity of 85%. In 34 lesions the (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and morphological imaging findings were discrepant. (18)F-FDG PET correctly identified 32 of the discrepant findings. Two bone/bone marrow metastases were missed by (18)F-FDG PET.
CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET showed noticeable differences in their uptake patterns. (18)F-FDG PET was more sensitive and specific for the detection of neuroblastoma lesions. Our findings suggest that a (18)F-FDG PET scan may be useful in the event of discrepant or inconclusive findings on (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT and morphological imaging.
METHODS: We compared 23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy scans and 23 (18)F-FDG PET scans (mean interval 10 days) in 19 patients with a suspected neuroblastic tumour (16 neuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroblastoma, 1 ganglioneuroma and 1 opsomyoclonus syndrome). SPECT images of the abdomen or other tumour-affected regions were available in all patients. Indications for (18)F-FDG PET were a (123)I-MIBG-negative tumour, a discrepancy in (123)I-MIBG uptake compared to the morphological imaging or imaging results inconsistent with clinical findings. A lesion was found by (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and/or (18)F-FDG PET and/or morphological imaging.
RESULTS: A total of 58 suspicious lesions (mean lesion diameter 3.8 cm) were evaluated and 18 were confirmed by histology and 40 by clinical follow-up. The sensitivities of (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET were 50% and 78% and the specificities were 75% and 92%, respectively. False-positive results (three (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, one (18)F-FDG PET) were due to physiological uptake or posttherapy changes. False-negative results (23 (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy, 10 (18)F-FDG PET) were due to low uptake and small lesion size. Combined (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/(18)F-FDG PET imaging showed the highest sensitivity of 85%. In 34 lesions the (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and morphological imaging findings were discrepant. (18)F-FDG PET correctly identified 32 of the discrepant findings. Two bone/bone marrow metastases were missed by (18)F-FDG PET.
CONCLUSION: (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy and (18)F-FDG PET showed noticeable differences in their uptake patterns. (18)F-FDG PET was more sensitive and specific for the detection of neuroblastoma lesions. Our findings suggest that a (18)F-FDG PET scan may be useful in the event of discrepant or inconclusive findings on (123)I-MIBG scintigraphy/SPECT and morphological imaging.
Full text links
Related Resources
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 
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