HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tatsumi, M. Articles by Wahl, R. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tatsumi, M. Articles by Wahl, R. L.

Direct Comparison of FDG PET and CT Findings in Patients with Lymphoma: Initial Experience¹

¹ From the Division of Nuclear Medicine (M.T., C.C., Y.N., R.L.W.) and Department of Radiology (E.K.F., R.L.W.), Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, 601 N Caroline St, Rm 3223A, Baltimore, MD 21287-0817. Received March 25, 2004; revision requested May 27; revision received November 25; accepted January 2, 2005. Address correspondence to R.L.W. (e-mail: rwahl{at}jhmi.edu).

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomographic (PET) and computed tomographic (CT) findings at the same anatomic locations in patients with lymphoma by using a combined PET/CT scanner and to analyze the lesions on metabolic and anatomic bases to evaluate causes of discrepant findings between the two modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board allowed an exempt retrospective review of cancer PET database, and informed consent was waived. The study was HIPAA compliant. Fifty-three patients with lymphoma (20 Hodgkin and 33 non-Hodgkin; mean age, 43 years; range, 12–83 years) who underwent FDG PET/CT were included. The PET and CT images were interpreted by two nuclear medicine physicians and one radiologist, respectively, blinded to the other imaging findings. Concordant PET and CT findings were regarded as positive or negative for lymphoma. The site with discordant findings was defined as positive for disease if it was accompanied by other PET- and CT-positive sites in the same patient or was confirmed clinically (histologic examination or progressive disease). Staging results were also compared by one nuclear medicine physician.

RESULTS: Of a total of 1537 anatomic sites in 53 patients, 48 had discordant findings between PET and CT. Forty (83%) of the 48 sites had correct PET findings (31 positive, nine negative), five had correct CT findings, and three were unresolved. The 31 PET-positive and CT-negative sites accounted for 23% of all 134 true-positive PET sites. PET provided accurate staging in an incremental nine (17%, upstaging in four and downstaging in five) of 53 patients in whom CT staging was incorrect. CT provided correct upstaging in two patients.

CONCLUSION: FDG PET/CT as a combined modality may contribute substantially to lesion characterization and staging in patients with lymphoma.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				C. Lin, E. Itti, C. Haioun, Y. Petegnief, A. Luciani, J. Dupuis, G. Paone, J.-N. Talbot, A. Rahmouni, and M. Meignan Early 18F-FDG PET for Prediction of Prognosis in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: SUV-Based Assessment Versus Visual Analysis J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1626 - 1632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. G. Schaefer, C. Taverna, K. Strobel, C. Wastl, M. Kurrer, and T. F. Hany Hodgkin Disease: Diagnostic Value of FDG PET/CT after First-Line Therapy--Is Biopsy of FDG-avid Lesions Still Needed? Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 257 - 262. [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]

				Y. L. Kasamon, R. J. Jones, and R. L. Wahl Integrating PET and PET/CT into the Risk-Adapted Therapy of Lymphoma J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 19S - 27S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Gregoire, K. Haustermans, X. Geets, S. Roels, and M. Lonneux PET-Based Treatment Planning in Radiotherapy: A New Standard? J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 68S - 77S. [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]

				M. Hadithi, M. Mallant, J. Oudejans, J.-H. T.M. van Waesberghe, C. J. Mulder, and E. F.I. Comans 18F-FDG PET Versus CT for the Detection of Enteropathy-Associated T-Cell Lymphoma in Refractory Celiac Disease J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2006; 47(10): 1622 - 1627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]