Download PDF
Nuklearmedizin 2007; 46(01): 09-14
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1616618
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Improved non-invasive T-Staging in non-small cell lung cancer by integrated18F-FDG PET/CT

Integrierte 18F-FDG PET/CT verbessert das nicht invasive T-Staging beim nicht kleinzelligen Bronchialkarzinom
S. Pauls   *
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
,
A. K. Buck   *
2   Department of Nuclear Medicine
,
K. Hohl
3   Department of Biometry and Medical Documentation
,
G. Halter
4   Department of Thoracic Surgery
,
M. Hetzel
5   Department of Internal Medicine II
,
N. M. Blumstein
2   Department of Nuclear Medicine
,
F. M. Mottaghy
2   Department of Nuclear Medicine
,
G. Glatting
2   Department of Nuclear Medicine
,
S. Krüger
5   Department of Internal Medicine II
,
L. Sunder-Plassmann
4   Department of Thoracic Surgery
,
P. Möller
6   Department of Pathology, University Hospital Ulm, Germany
,
V. Hombach
5   Department of Internal Medicine II
,
H.-J. Brambs
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
,
S. N. Reske
2   Department of Nuclear Medicine
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 30 May 2006

accepted in revised form: 25 September 2006

Publication Date:
08 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Aim: In this prospective study, reliability of integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT for staging of NSCLC was evaluated and compared to MDCT or PET alone. Patients, methods: 240 patients (pts) with suspected NSCLC were examined using PET/CT. Of those patients 112 underwent surgery comprising 80 patients with NSCLC (T1 n = 26, T2 n = 37, T3 n = 11, T4 n = 6). Imaging modalities were evaluated independently. Results: MDCT, PET and PET/CT diagnosed the correct T-stage in 40/80 pts (50%; CI: 0.39-0.61), 40/80 pts (50%; CI: 0.39-0.61) and 51/80 pts (64%; CI: 0.52-0.74), respectively, whereas equivocal T-stage was found in 15/80 pts (19%; CI: 0.11-0.19), 12/80 pts (15%; CI: 0.08-0.25) and 4/80 pts (5%; CI: 0.01-0.12), respectively. With PET/CT, T-stage was more frequently correct compared to MDCT (p = 0.003) or PET (p = 0.019). Pooling stages T1/T2, T-stage was correctly diagnosed with MDCT, PET and PET/CT in 54/80 pts (68%; CI: 0.56-0.78), 56/80 pts (70%; CI: 0.59-0.80) and 65/80 pts (81%; CI: 0.71-0.89). T3 stage was most difficult to diagnose. T3 tumors were correctly diagnosed with MDCT in 2/11 pts (18%; CI: 0.02-0.52) versus 0/11 pts (0%; CI: 0.00-0.28) with PET and 5/11 pts (45%; CI: 0.17-0.77) with PET/CT. In all imaging modalities, there were no equivocal findings for T4 tumors. Of these, MDCT found the correct tumor stage in 4/6 pts (67%; CI: 0.22-0.95), PET in 3/6 pts (50%; CI: 0.12-0.88) and PET/ CT in 5/6 pts (83%; CI: 0.36-0.99). Conclusion: Integrated PET/CT was significantly more accurate for T-staging of NSCLC compared to MDCT or PET alone. The advantages of PET/CT are especially pronounced combining T1- and T2-stage as well as in advanced tumors.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Evaluation der diagnostischen Genauigkeit der integrierten 18F-FDG PET/CT bezüglich des T-Stagings bei nicht-kleinzelligem Bronchialkarzinom (NSCLC) im Vergleich zu den Einzelverfahren MDCT und PET. Patienten, Methode: 240 Patienten (Pat) mit Verdacht auf NSCLC wurden mit PET/CT untersucht, 112 Pat wurden operiert. Bei 80 Pat lag ein NSCLC vor (T1 n = 26, T2 n = 37, T3 n = 11, T4 n = 6). Die Untersuchungsverfahren wurden jeweils unabhängig voneinander ausgewertet. Ergebnisse: MDCT, PET und PET/CT diagnostizierten das T-Stadium bei 40/80 Pat (50%; CI: 0,39-0,61), 40/80 Pat (50%; CI: 0,39-0,61) und 51/80 Pat (64%; CI: 0,52-0,74) korrekt, wobei das T-Stadium bei 15/80 Pat (19%; CI: 0,11-0,19), 12/80 Pat (15%; CI: 0,08-0,25) und 4/80 Pat (5%; CI: 0,01-0,12) unsicher angegeben wurde. Mit PET/CT wurde das T-Stadium im Vergleich zur MDCT (p = 0,003) oder PET (p = 0,019) häufiger korrekt festgelegt. Bei Zusammenfassung der Stadien T1 und T2 als eine Gruppe wurde das korrekte T-Stadium mit MDCT, PET und PET/CT bei 54/80 Pat (68%; CI: 0,56-0,78), 56/80 Pat (70%; CI: 0,59-0,80) und 65/80 Pat (81%; CI: 0,71-0,89) diagnostiziert. T3-Stadien waren am schwierigsten festzulegen. T3-Tumoren wurden mit MDCT bei 2/11 Pat (18%; CI: 0,02-0,52), mit PET bei 0/11 Pat (0%; CI: 0,00-0,28) und mit PET/CT bei 5/11 Pat (45%; CI: 0,17-0,77) korrekt klassifiziert. T4-Tumoren wurden mit MDCT bei 4/6 Pat (67%; CI: 0,22-0,95), mit PET bei 3/6 Pat (50%; CI: 0,12-0,88) und mit PET/CT bei 5/6 Pat (83%; CI: 0,36-0,99) korrekt klassifiziert. Schlussfolgerung: Durch die integrierte PET/CT kann das T-Stadium bei NSCLC signifikant häufiger korrekt bestimmt werden im Vergleich zu den Einzelverfahren MDCT oder PET. Die Vorteile der PET/CT kommen besonders bei T1- und T2-Tumoren und bei fortgeschrittenen Tumorstadien zum Tragen.

Keywords

NSCLC - PET/CT - PET - MDCT - T-staging

Schlüsselwörter

NSCLC - PET/CT - PET - MDCT - T-Staging

* contributed equally


 

  • References

  • 1 Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT. et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 2003; 299: 526-33.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Belvedere O, Grossi F. Lung cancer highlights from ASCO 2005. Oncologist 2006; 11: 39-50.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Brundage MD, Davies D, Mackillop WJ. Prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer: a decade of progress. Chest 2002; 122: 1037-57.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cerfolio RJ, Ojha B, Bryant AS. et al. The accuracy of integrated PET-CT compared with dedicated PET alone for the staging of patients with nonsm- all cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 78: 1017-23.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chooi WK, Matthews S, Bull MJ. et al. Multislice computed tomography in staging lung cancer: the role of multiplanar image reconstruction. J Com- put Assist Tomogr 2005; 29: 357-60.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Czernin J, Auerbach MA. Clinical PET/CT imaging. Nucl Med 2005; 44: S18-23.
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Gilman MD, Equino SL. State-of-the-art FDG PET imaging of lung cancer. Semin Roentgenol 2005; 40: 143-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Goerres GW, Kamel E, Seifert B. et al. Accuracy of image coregistration of pulmonary lesions in patients with non-msall cell lung cancer using an integrated PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1469-75.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Greene FL. et al. (eds) Lung. In: AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. TNM Classification of MalignantTumors NewYork, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2002: 191-203.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Gupta N, Gill H, Graeber G. et al. Dynamic positron emission tomography with 18F fluorodeoxyg- lucose imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant lung / mediastinal lesions. Chest 1998; 114: 1105-11.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Halpern BS, Schiepers C, Weber WA. et al. Presur- gical staging of non-small cell lung cancer-positron emission tomography, integrated positron emission tomography/CT, and software image fusion. Chest 2005; 128: 2289-97.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hicks RJ, Kalff V, MacManus MP. et al. 18F- FDG PET provides high-impact and powerful prognostic stratification in staging newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 1596-604.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hübner KF, Buonocore E, Gould HR. et al. Differentiating benign from malignant lung lesions using "quantitative" parameters of FDG PET images. Clin Nucl Med 1996; 21: 941-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kalff V, Hicks RJ, MacManus MP. et al. Clinical impact of 18F fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: aprospective study. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 111-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kamel EM, Zwahlen D, Wyss MT. et al. Whole- body 18F-FDG PET improves the management of patients with small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 1911-7.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kuehl H, Antoch G. How much CT do we need for PET/CT. Nucl Med 2005; 44: S24-31.
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF. et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2500-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Marom EM, McAdams HP, Erasmus JJ. et al. Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET. Radiology 1999; 212: 803-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mountain CF, Dresler CM. Regional lymph node classification for lung cancer staging. Chest 1997; 111: 1718-23.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Naruke T, Goya T, Tsuchiya R. et al. Prognosis and survival in resected lung carcinoma based on the new international staging system. Thorac Car- diovasc Surg 1988; 96: 440-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Pastorino U, Bellomi M, Landoni C. et al. Early lung-cancer detection with spiral CT and positron emission tomography in heavy smokers: 2-year results. Lancet 2003; 362: 593-7.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pfister DG, Johnson DH, Azzoli DG. et al. American society of clinical oncology treatment of unre- sectable non-small-cell lung cancer guideline: Update 2003. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 330-52.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pieterman RM, van Puttenb JWG, Meuzelaar JJ. et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positronemission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 254-61.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Scott WJ, Schwabe JL, Gupta NC. et al. Positron emission tomography of lung tumors and mediastinal lymph nodes using 18F-fluorodeoxyglu- cose. Ann Thorac Surg 1994; 58: 698-703.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Shah SK, McNitt-Gray MF, Rogers SR. et al. Computer aided characterization of the solitary pulmonary nodule using volumetric and contrast enhancement features. Acad Radiol 2005; 12: 1310-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Shim SS, Lee KS, Kim B-T. et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of integrated FDG PET/CT and CT alone for preoperative staging. Radiology 2005; 236: 1011-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Silvestri GA, Tanoue LT, Margolis ML. et al. The non-invasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: the guidelines. Chest 2003; 123: 147S-56S.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Strobel K, Thuerl M, Hany TF. Howmuch. intravenous contrast is needed in FDG-PET/CT? Nucl Med 2005; 44: S32-7.
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Swensen SJ, Brown LR, Colby TV. et al. Lung nodule enhancement at CT: prospective findings. Radiology 1996; 201: 447-55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Travis WD, Garg K, Franklin WA. et al. Evolving concepts in the pathology and computed tomography imaging of lung adenocarcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 3279-87.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Vansteenkiste J, Fischer BM, Dooms C. et al. Positron-emission tomography in prognostic and therapeutic assessment of lung cancer: systemic review. Lancet Oncol 2004; 5: 531-40.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Verschakelen JA, De Wever W, Bogaert J. Role of computed tomography in lung cancer staging. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2004; 10: 248-55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Watanabe Y. TNM classification for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 9: 343-50.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Webb WR. Lung cancer and bronchopulmonary neoplasm. In: Webb WR, Higgins CB. (eds). Thoracic imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005: 75-7.
    Google Scholar