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

This Article Figures Only Full Text All Versions of this Article: 2261010920v1 226/1/181    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Rohren, E. M. Articles by Coleman, R. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rohren, E. M. Articles by Coleman, R. E.

Screening for Cerebral Metastases with FDG PET in Patients Undergoing Whole-Body Staging of Non–Central Nervous System Malignancy¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. From the 2000 RSNA scientific assembly. Received May 14, 2001; revision requested June 27; final revision received May 6, 2002; accepted May 14. Address correspondence to E.M.R., Department of Nuclear Medicine, Charlton 1N, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: Rohren.Eric@mayo.edu).

PURPOSE: To compare fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) with the current standard, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, to determine the sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET for detection of cerebral metastases and to determine the factors that may affect lesion conspicuity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients underwent brain PET and contrast material–enhanced brain MR imaging, with a maximum of 30 days between examinations. PET and MR images were each retrospectively reviewed by two independent readers who were blinded to the clinical history and results of the other technique. Presence of metastatic disease was recorded for each modality. Sensitivity and specificity of FDG PET were determined with MR imaging as the standard. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test and the logistic regression model.

RESULTS: Sixteen patients had cerebral metastases at MR imaging, and in 12 of these, PET scans were interpreted as showing metastatic disease (in four, scans were false-negative). Twenty-four patients had no cerebral metastases at MR imaging, and 20 of these had PET scans interpreted as normal (in four, scans were false-positive). For identification of patients with cerebral metastases, FDG PET had a sensitivity of 75% (12 of 16) and a specificity of 83% (20 of 24). Thirty-eight metastatic lesions were seen at MR imaging; 23 (61%) of these were identified at PET. Size was a statistically significant factor that influenced lesion detection at PET (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: Only 61% of metastatic lesions in the brain were identified at PET. In particular, detection of small lesions was difficult.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Brain neoplasms, metastases, 10.38 • Brain neoplasms, MR, 10.121411, 10.12143, 10.38 • Brain neoplasms, PET, 10.12163, 10.1217 • Fluorine, radioactive, 10.12163, 10.1217 • Positron emission tomography (PET), comparative studies

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. C. Nguyen, E. I. Akduman, M. H. Sayed, D. Oliver, and M. M. Osman Increased 18F-FDG Uptake in the Posterior Ocular Bulb Is Associated with Brain Metastasis: A Retrospective Study Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2008; 191(6): W268 - W274. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Ohno, H. Koyama, Y. Onishi, D. Takenaka, M. Nogami, T. Yoshikawa, S. Matsumoto, Y. Kotani, and K. Sugimura Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Whole-Body MR Examination for M-Stage Assessment--Utility for Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted Imaging Compared with Integrated FDG PET/CT Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 643 - 654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Posther, L. M. McCall, D. H. Harpole Jr., C. E. Reed, J. B. Putnam Jr., V. W. Rusch, and B. A. Siegel Yield of Brain 18F-FDG PET in Evaluating Patients with Potentially Operable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2006; 47(10): 1607 - 1611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. F. Bruzzi, M. T. Truong, E. M. Marom, O. Mawlawi, D. A. Podoloff, H. A. Macapinlac, and R. F. Munden Incidental Findings on Integrated PET/CT That Do Not Accumulate 18F-FDG Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2006; 187(4): 1116 - 1123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. B. Lobrano Partnerships in Oncology and Radiology: The Role of Radiology in the Detection, Staging, and Follow-up of Lung Cancer Oncologist, July 1, 2006; 11(7): 774 - 779. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. U. Lin, J. R. Bellon, and E. P. Winer CNS Metastases in Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., September 1, 2004; 22(17): 3608 - 3617. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. M. Rohren, T. G. Turkington, and R. E. Coleman Clinical Applications of PET in Oncology Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 305 - 332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. M. Osman Whole-Body Imaging for Cancer Staging JAMA, March 17, 2004; 291(11): 1320 - 1320. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. M. Kamel, D. Zwahlen, M. T. Wyss, K. D. Stumpe, G. K. von Schulthess, and H. C. Steinert Whole-Body 18F-FDG PET Improves the Management of Patients with Small Cell Lung Cancer J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2003; 44(12): 1911 - 1917. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]