Diagnostic value of CT, PET and combined PET/CT performed with low-dose unenhanced CT and full-dose enhanced CT in the initial staging of lymphoma

被引:0
|
作者
Pinilla, I. [4 ]
Gomez-Leon, N. [4 ]
Del Campo-Del Val, L. [1 ]
Hernandez-Maraver, D. [2 ]
Rodriguez-Vigil, B. [4 ]
Jover-Diaz, R. [3 ]
Coya, J. [4 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Univ Princesa, Dept Radiol, Madrid, Spain
[2] Hosp Univ La Paz, Dept Hematol, Madrid 28046, Spain
[3] Unidad PET TC MDA Anderson, Madrid, Spain
[4] Hosp Univ La Paz, Dept Radiol & Nucl Med, Madrid 28046, Spain
关键词
Positron-emission tomography; Tomography; X-ray computed; Lymphoma; Neoplasm staging; POSITRON-EMISSION-TOMOGRAPHY; NON-HODGKIN-LYMPHOMA; FDG-PET; DISEASE; INVOLVEMENT; NEED;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Aim. The aim of this paper was to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), unenhanced low-dose PET/CT (LD-PET/CT) and full-dose enhanced PET/CT (FD-PET/CT) for the initial staging of lymphoma. Methods. One hundred and one lymphoma patients were examined by [18F]FDG-PET/CT including unenhanced low-dose CT and enhanced full-dose CT. Each modality of PET/CT was evaluated by a nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist unaware of the other modality, while the CT and PET images were interpreted separately by another independent radiologist and nuclear medicine physician respectively. The nodal and extranodal lesions detected by each technique were compared with a reference standard. Results. For nodal assessment, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative LR (LR-) of LD-PET/CT were 97%, 96%, 98%, 95%, 26 and 0.02 respectively, and those of FD-PET/CT were 97%, 97%, 98%, 95%, 36 and 0.02. These results were significantly better than those of PET (sensitivity 82%, specificity 81%, PPV 88%, NPV 72%, LR+ 4.3, LR-0.21). Likewise, both PET/CT displayed a higher sensitivity, NPV and LR-than CT (91%, 84%, 0.1 respectively). For organ evaluation, both modalities of PET/CT also had significantly better sensitivity and NPV than that of PET (LD-PET/CT: sensitivity 92%, NPV 90%; FD-PET/CT sensitivity 94%, NPV 92%; PET: sensitivity 70%, NPV 69%). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for bone marrow involvement were 29%, 84%, 45% and 72% respectively for PET, and 29%, 90%, 56%, and 74% for both, LD-PET/CT, and FD-PET/CT. No significant differences were found between LD-PET/CT and FDPET/CT, but FD-PET/CT detected important incidental findings in 5.9% of patients. Conclusion. PET/CT is an accurate technique for the initial staging of lymphomas without significant differences between LD-PET/CT and FD-PET/CT. FDPET/CT detects relevant incidental findings that are missed on LD-PET/CT.
引用
收藏
页码:567 / 575
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Diagnostic Contribution of Contrast-Enhanced CT as Compared with Unenhanced Low-Dose CT in PET/CT Staging and Treatment Response Assessment of 18F-FDG-Avid Lymphomas: A Prospective Study
    Marchetti, Lara
    Perrucci, Luca
    Pellegrino, Fabio
    Baroni, Luca
    Merlo, Annalisa
    Tilli, Massimo
    Rambaldi, Ilaria
    Maietti, Elisa
    Carnevale, Aldo
    Bartolomei, Mirco
    Giganti, Melchiore
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2021, 62 (10) : 1372 - 1379
  • [22] FDG PET/low-dose (ld) CT accuracy in staging and restaging Hodgkin lymphoma does not significantly change by adding diagnostic contrast enhanced (ce) CT
    Guerra, Luca
    Ippolito, Davide
    Mapelli, Paola
    Bolis, Silvia
    De Ponti, Elena
    Monguzzi, Letizia
    Parra, Rita Garcia
    Sironi, Sandro
    Messa, Cristina
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2010, 51
  • [23] Diagnostic Value of FDG PET/CT in a Low Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening Program
    Garcia-Velloso, M. J.
    Bastarrika, G.
    Zulueta, J.
    Lozano, M. D.
    Caicedo, C.
    Marti-Climent, J. M.
    Montes, U.
    Richter, J. A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2012, 39 : S568 - S568
  • [24] Restaging of patients with lymphoma -: Comparison of low dose CT (20 mAs) with contrast enhanced diagnostic CT in combined [18F]-FDG PET/CT
    la Fougere, C.
    Pfluger, T.
    Schneider, V.
    Hacker, M.
    Broeckel, N.
    Morhard, D.
    Hundt, W.
    Bartenstein, P.
    Becker, C.
    Tiling, R.
    NUKLEARMEDIZIN-NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2008, 47 (01): : 37 - 42
  • [25] Diagnostic accuracy of acute diverticulitis with unenhanced low-dose CT
    Thorisson, A.
    Nikberg, M.
    Torkzad, M. R.
    Laurell, H.
    Smedh, K.
    Chabok, A.
    BJS OPEN, 2020, 4 (04): : 659 - 665
  • [26] Can Full-Dose Contrast-Enhanced CT Be Omitted From an FDG-PET/CT Staging Examination in Newly Diagnosed FDG-Avid Lymphoma?
    van Hamersvelt, Hanneke P.
    Kwee, Thomas C.
    Fijnheer, Rob
    Beek, Frederik J. A.
    de Klerk, John M. H.
    Nievelstein, Rutger A. J.
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2014, 38 (04) : 620 - 625
  • [27] PET/CT in recurrent carcinoma ovary: Contrast enhanced CT (CECT) versus non enhanced low-dose CT (NECT)
    Vyas, A. G.
    Tiwary, A.
    Aggarwal, A.
    ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2018, 29 : 86 - 86
  • [28] Low-dose interpolated average CT for attenuation correction in cardiac PET/CT
    Wu, Tung-Hsin
    Zhang, Geoffrey
    Wang, Shyh-Jen
    Chen, Chih-Hao
    Yang, Bang-Hung
    Wu, Nien-Yun
    Huang, Tzung-Chi
    NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS & METHODS IN PHYSICS RESEARCH SECTION A-ACCELERATORS SPECTROMETERS DETECTORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, 2010, 619 (1-3): : 361 - 364
  • [29] Comparison of low dose unenhanced CT, FDG-PET, FDG-PET/CT, and contrast-enhanced CT for the detection of lesions in patients with lung cancer
    Dam, Vincent
    Sanz, Salome
    Torigian, Drew
    Chong, Elise
    Parsons, Molly
    Alavi, Abass
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2009, 50
  • [30] Use of full-dose contrast-enhanced CT for extrahepatic staging using Gallium-68-DOTATATE PET/CT in patients with neuroendocrine tumors
    Apitzsch, Jonas
    Verburg, Frederik Anton
    Mottaghy, Felix
    Heinzel, Alexander
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2021, 27 (04) : 573 - 579