Journal of Nuclear Medicine · 2017 · 30 citations · 22 references
MedicineNuclear MedicineRadiologyCancer ScreeningDiagnostic ImagingDiagnostic RadiologyBody ImagingCancer DetectionCancer DiagnosisComputed TomographyMedical ImagingPositron Emission TomographyComparative Diagnostic PerformanceDiagnostic Performance MetricsDiagnostic Radiotracer ImagingMedical Imaging ScreeningOncologic Pet ImagingPet-computed TomographyRandomizationTentative Diagnosis
A fast-track pathway has been established in Denmark to investigate patients with serious nonspecific symptoms and signs of cancer (NSSC), who are not eligible to enter an organ-specific cancer program. The prevalence of cancer in this cohort is approximately 20%. The optimal screening strategy in patients with NSSC remains unknown. The aim of the study was to investigate whether <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT was superior to CT as an initial imaging modality in patients with NSSC. In a randomized prospective trial, the imaging modalities were compared with regard to diagnostic performance. <b>Methods:</b> Two hundred patients were randomized 1:1 to whole-body <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT or CT of the thorax and abdomen as the imaging modality. A tentative diagnosis was established after first-line imaging. The final referral diagnosis was adjudicated by the physician, when sufficient data were available. <b>Results:</b> One hundred ninety-seven patients were available for analysis because 3 patients withdrew consent before scanning. Thirty-nine (20%) patients were diagnosed with cancer, 10 (5%) with an infection, 15 (8%) with an autoimmune disease, and 76 (39%) with other diseases. In the remaining 57 patients (28%), no specific disease was found. <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT had a higher specificity (96% vs. 85%; <i>P</i> = 0.028) and a higher accuracy (94% vs. 82%; <i>P</i> = 0.017) than CT. However, there were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity (83% vs. 70%) or negative predictive values (96% vs. 92%). No difference in days to final referral diagnosis according to randomization group could be shown (7.2 vs. 7.6 d). However, for the subgroups in which the imaging modality showed a suggestion of malignancy, there was a significant delay to final diagnosis in the CT group compared with the <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT group (11.6 vs. 5.7 d; <i>P</i> = 0.02). <b>Conclusion:</b> Compared with CT, we found a higher diagnostic specificity and accuracy of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT for detecting cancer in patients with NSSC. <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT should therefore be considered as first-line imaging in this group of patients.
22
Claudia Allemani, Hannah K. Weir, Helena Carreira et al. · The Lancet · 2014 · 2.7K citations · Full text
Medicine, Biostatistics, Oncology +17
D Forman, Heather Bryant, J. Butler et al. · The Lancet · 2010 · 1.1K citations · Full text
Medicine, Biostatistics, Oncology +17
Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma.
Christian Cohade, Medhat Osman, Jeffrey P. Leal et al. · PubMed · 2003 · 317 citations