| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Nuclear Medicine |
1 From the Departments of Nuclear Medicine (N.G.S., T.F.H., K.D.M.S., G.K.v.S., G.W.G.) and Internal Medicine (C.T.), University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland; and Department of Biostatistics, University of Zurich, Switzerland (B.S.). Received June 23, 2003; revision requested August 29; final revision received February 2, 2004; accepted February 16. Address correspondence to G.W.G. (e-mail: gerhard.goerres@dmr.usz.ch).
PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare diagnostic value of coregistered fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic (PET) and computed tomographic (CT) scans obtained with low-dose nonenhanced CT (PET/CT) with those routinely obtained with contrast material–enhanced CT for staging and restaging of disease in patients with Hodgkin disease or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients (mean age, 39.6 years ± 17.1 [standard deviation]) with Hodgkin disease (n = 42) or high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 18) were included in this retrospective study. All patients underwent PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT within a maximum of 24 days (mean, 9.1 days ± 7.0) of each other for staging (n = 19) or first follow-up examination (n = 41). Findings were extracted from original written reports (PET/CT, contrast-enhanced CT) and compared with findings of reference standard, which included biopsy or follow-up with clinical, laboratory, or other imaging findings. For statistical analysis, sensitivity and specificity were calculated with findings of the reference standard. Agreement of both methods was determined with Cohen 
and McNemar tests on a per-patient basis.
RESULTS: For evaluation of lymph node involvement, sensitivity of PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT was 94% and 88%, and specificity was 100% and 86%, respectively. For evaluation of organ involvement, sensitivity of PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT was 88% and 50%, and specificity was 100% and 90%, respectively. Agreement of both methods was excellent ( = 0.84) for assignment of lymph node involvement but only fair ( = 0.50) for extranodal disease. A difference with P < .05 (McNemar test) was considered significant in regard to exclusion of disease with PET/CT, compared with contrast-enhanced CT.
CONCLUSION: PET/CT performed with nonenhanced CT is more sensitive and specific than is contrast-enhanced CT for evaluation of lymph node and organ involvement, especially regarding exclusion of disease, in patients with Hodgkin disease and high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
© RSNA, 2004
Index terms: Dual-modality imaging, PET/CT, 99.12919, 99.12963 • Hodgkin disease, CT, 99.12912 • Hodgkin disease, staging • Lymphoma, CT, 99.12912 • Lymphoma, PET, 99.12963 • Lymphoma, staging
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. L. Elstrom, J. P. Leonard, M. Coleman, and R. K. J. Brown Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma Ann. Onc., October 1, 2008; 19(10): 1770 - 1773. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Terasawa, T. Nihashi, T. Hotta, and H. Nagai 18F-FDG PET for Posttherapy Assessment of Hodgkin's Disease and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Systematic Review J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2008; 49(1): 13 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Tatsumi, J. H. Miller, and R. L. Wahl 18F-FDG PET/CT in Evaluating Non-CNS Pediatric Malignancies J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2007; 48(12): 1923 - 1931. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Seam, M. E. Juweid, and B. D. Cheson The role of FDG-PET scans in patients with lymphoma Blood, November 15, 2007; 110(10): 3507 - 3516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. P. Leite, N. Kased, R. F. Hanna, M. A. Brown, J. M. Pereira, R. Cunha, and C. B. Sirlin Cross-sectional Imaging of Extranodal Involvement in Abdominopelvic Lymphoproliferative Malignancies RadioGraphics, November 1, 2007; 27(6): 1613 - 1634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Gollub, R. Hong, D. M. Sarasohn, and T. Akhurst Limitations of CT During PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1583 - 1591. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Strobel, N. Schaefer, C Renner, P Veit-Haibach, D Husarik, A. Koma, and T. Hany Cost-effective therapy remission assessment in lymphoma patients using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography: is an end of treatment exam necessary in all patients? Ann. Onc., April 1, 2007; 18(4): 658 - 664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Juweid, S. Stroobants, O. S. Hoekstra, F. M. Mottaghy, M. Dietlein, A. Guermazi, G. A. Wiseman, L. Kostakoglu, K. Scheidhauer, A. Buck, et al. Use of Positron Emission Tomography for Response Assessment of Lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2007; 25(5): 571 - 578. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. M. Blodgett, C. C. Meltzer, and D. W. Townsend PET/CT: Form and Function Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 360 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Schoder and M. Gonen Screening for Cancer with PET and PET/CT: Potential and Limitations J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 4S - 18S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Czernin, M. Allen-Auerbach, and H. R. Schelbert Improvements in Cancer Staging with PET/CT: Literature-Based Evidence as of September 2006 J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 78S - 88S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. D. Berry and G. J. R. Cook Positron emission tomography in oncology Br. Med. Bull., December 14, 2006; (2006) ldl013v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Rodriguez-Vigil, N. Gomez-Leon, I. Pinilla, D. Hernandez-Maraver, J. Coya, L. Martin-Curto, and R. Madero PET/CT in Lymphoma: Prospective Study of Enhanced Full-Dose PET/CT Versus Unenhanced Low-Dose PET/CT J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2006; 47(10): 1643 - 1648. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. A. Guadagnolo, R. S. Punglia, K. M. Kuntz, P. M. Mauch, and A. K. Ng Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Computerized Tomography in the Routine Follow-Up of Patients After Primary Treatment for Hodgkin's Disease J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2006; 24(25): 4116 - 4122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. S. Jhanwar and D. J. Straus The Role of PET in Lymphoma J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2006; 47(8): 1326 - 1334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Reinhardt, A. Y. Joe, U. Jaeger, A. Huber, A. Matthies, J. Bucerius, R. Roedel, H. Strunk, T. Bieber, H.-J. Biersack, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Whole Body Dual Modality 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging for N- and M-Staging of Malignant Melanoma: Experience With 250 Consecutive Patients J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2006; 24(7): 1178 - 1187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Juweid and B. D. Cheson Positron-Emission Tomography and Assessment of Cancer Therapy N. Engl. J. Med., February 2, 2006; 354(5): 496 - 507. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Allen-Auerbach, K. Yeom, J. Park, M. Phelps, and J. Czernin Standard PET/CT of the Chest During Shallow Breathing Is Inadequate for Comprehensive Staging of Lung Cancer J. Nucl. Med., February 1, 2006; 47(2): 298 - 301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. K. von Schulthess, H. C. Steinert, and T. F. Hany Integrated PET/CT: Current Applications and Future Directions Radiology, February 1, 2006; 238(2): 405 - 422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Raanani, Y. Shasha, C. Perry, U. Metser, E. Naparstek, S. Apter, A. Nagler, A. Polliack, I. Ben-Bassat, and E. Even-Sapir Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era? Ann. Onc., January 1, 2006; 17(1): 117 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. E. Juweid Utility of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Scanning in Managing Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma Hematology, January 1, 2006; 2006(1): 259 - 265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. D. Brennan, T. Gleeson, L. E. Coate, C. Cronin, D. Carney, and S. J. Eustace A Comparison of Whole-Body MRI and CT for the Staging of Lymphoma Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 711 - 716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Reinhardt, C. Herkel, C. Altehoefer, J. Finke, and E. Moser Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Ann. Onc., September 1, 2005; 16(9): 1524 - 1529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. E. Coleman, D. Delbeke, M. J. Guiberteau, P. S. Conti, H. D. Royal, J. C. Weinreb, B. A. Siegel, M. F. Federle, D. W. Townsend, and L. L. Berland Concurrent PET/CT with an Integrated Imaging System: Intersociety Dialogue from the Joint Working Group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance J. Nucl. Med., July 1, 2005; 46(7): 1225 - 1239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Blodgett, B. Casagranda, D. W. Townsend, and C. C. Meltzer Issues, Controversies, and Clinical Utility of Combined PET/CT Imaging: What Is the Interpreting Physician Facing? Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2005; 184(5_supp): S138 - S145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
