Role of ¹⁸FDG PET/CT in Detecting Primary Tumors in Patients with Carcinoma of Unknown Primary: Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study from 2017 to 2023 (Extension Study)

Abstract

Background Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a diverse group of cancers in which the primary tumor site remains occult despite detailed investigations. This is an extension of a published parent study with a smaller cohort, to further validate the published facts of detection efficiency of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (¹⁸FDG PET/CT) in patients with CUP over a larger sample from 2017 to 2023.

Methods Patients with CUP referred for ¹⁸FDG PET/CT scan for detection of primary sites during the study period were recruited. ¹⁸FDG PET/CT scan was acquired using a standardized protocol, and patients with suspected primary sites underwent biopsies. Scan findings and biopsy results were analyzed to find the detection rate, sensitivity, area under the curve (AUC), and positive predictive value (PPV). As no biopsy was performed in cases with negative scan, these cases were considered false negatives (FNs).

Results Total 230 patients with CUP were included with similar demographic trend (mean age: 58 ± 14 years; 63% male and 37% female; mean body mass index: 26.82 ± 5.4 kg/m²); 138/230 (60 vs. 74% in parent study) patients were found to have a hypermetabolic focus suggestive of primary tumor sites and subjected to biopsy which turned out positive in 127/138 (true positive [TP]: 92 vs. 76% in parent study) and negative in 11/138 (true negative [TN]: 8 vs. 24% in parent study). Sensitivity and PPV of ¹⁸FDG PET/CT were 58 and 92%, respectively (68 and 76%, respectively, in parent study). The remaining 92/230 (40%) patients with negative ¹⁸FDG PET/CT for primary focus did not have biopsy. No significant demographic difference was seen in patients with TP and FN studies (p > 0.05). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve revealed fair diagnostic strength of ¹⁸FDG PET/CT for detecting unknown primary (AUC 0.710; p ≤ 0.05; standard error = 0.0167; confidence interval: 0.647–0.768; vs. nonsignificant in parent study).

Conclusion We conclude that this extension study with a larger cohort compared with the parent study has found a similar detection efficiency of ¹⁸FDG PET/CT for identifying primary tumor in patients with CUP (58 vs. 57%) but with better PPV and sensitivity. Upfront use of ¹⁸FDG PET/CT in CUP could preclude the use of many futile diagnostic procedures. Furthermore, the use of tumor-specific PET tracers, higher resolution scanners, and acquiring delayed images in patients with negative ¹⁸FDG study could reduce FN results in patients with CUP.

Keywords

carcinoma of unknown primary - CUP - ¹⁸FDG PET/CT - detection efficiency - extension study

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the ethical review committee of our JCI-accredited health care facility (ERC#: 2024-9755-28071).

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
19. November 2024

• References

• 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019; 69 (01) 7-34
• 2 Burglin SA, Hess S, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Gerke O. 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of the primary tumor in adults with extracervical metastases from cancer of unknown primary: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96 (16) e6713
• 3 Fernandez-Cotarelo MJ, Guerra-Vales JM, Colina F, de la Cruz J. Prognostic factors in cancer of unknown primary site. Tumori 2010; 96 (01) 111-116
• 4 Walker MS, Weinstein L, Luo R, Marino I. Pretreatment costs of care and time to initial treatment for patients with cancer of unknown primary. J Comp Eff Res 2018; 7 (06) 523-533
• 5 Pavlidis N, Pentheroudakis G. Cancer of unknown primary site. Lancet 2012; 379 (9824): 1428-1435
• 6 Kwee TC, Basu S, Cheng G, Alavi A. FDG PET/CT in carcinoma of unknown primary. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37 (03) 635-644
• 7 Taylor MB, Bromham NR, Arnold SE. Carcinoma of unknown primary: key radiological issues from the recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines. Br J Radiol 2012; 85 (1014): 661-671
• 8 Kim KW, Krajewski KM, Jagannathan JP. et al. Cancer of unknown primary sites: what radiologists need to know and what oncologists want to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200 (03) 484-492
• 9 Fatima N, Zaman MU, Zaman A, Zaman U, Zaman S, Tahseen R. Detection efficiency of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for primary tumors in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary. World J Nucl Med 2019; 19 (01) 47-51
• 10 Boellaard R, Delgado-Bolton R, Oyen WJ. et al; European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM). FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 42 (02) 328-354
• 11 Elboga U, Kervancioğlu S, Sahin E, Basibuyuk M, Celen YZ, Aktolun C. Utility of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed in carcinoma of unknown primary. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014; 7 (12) 8941-8946
• 12 Fletcher JW, Djulbegovic B, Soares HP. et al. Recommendations on the use of 18F-FDG PET in oncology. J Nucl Med 2008; 49 (03) 480-508
• 13 Nissan E, Amit U, Baron L. et al. The usefulness of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in detecting and managing cancers with unknown primary site depends on histological subtype. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 17732
• 14 Park JS, Yim JJ, Kang WJ. et al. Detection of primary sites in unknown primary tumors using FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT. BMC Res Notes 2011; 4: 56
• 15 Roh JL, Kim JS, Lee JH. et al. Utility of combined (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and computed tomography in patients with cervical metastases from unknown primary tumors. Oral Oncol 2009; 45 (03) 218-224
• 16 Freudenberg LS, Fischer M, Antoch G. et al. Dual modality of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in patients with cervical carcinoma of unknown primary. Med Princ Pract 2005; 14 (03) 155-160
• 17 Burglin SA, Hess S, Høilund-Carlsen PF, Gerke O. 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of the primary tumor in adults with extracervical metastases from cancer of unknown primary: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96 (16) e6713
• 18 Gladish GW, Choe DH, Marom EM, Sabloff BS, Broemeling LD, Munden RF. Incidental pulmonary emboli in oncology patients: prevalence, CT evaluation, and natural history. Radiology 2006; 240 (01) 246-255
• 19 Pentheroudakis G, Briasoulis E, Pavlidis N. Cancer of unknown primary site: missing primary or missing biology?. Oncologist 2007; 12 (04) 418-425
• 20 Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A, Sharma P. Assessing the effect of various blood glucose levels on ¹⁸F-FDG activity in the brain, liver, and blood pool. J Nucl Med Technol 2019; 47 (04) 313-318