Diagnostic Performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT in Patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary: Additional Benefit over CT-Based Conventional Work up
Novelty in Biomedicine,
Vol. 4 No. 1 (2016),
18 January 2016
,
Page 5-12
https://doi.org/10.22037/nbm.v4i1.10496
Abstract
Background: In the era of well-developed site-specific treatment strategies in cancer, identification of occult primary is of paramount importance in CUP patients. Furthermore, exact determination of the extent of the disease may help in optimizing treatment planning. The aim of the present study was to investigate additional value of F-18 FDG PET/CT in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) as an appropriate imaging tool in early phase of initial standard work up.Materials and Methods: Sixty-two newly diagnosed CUP patients with inconclusive diagnostic CT scan of chest, abdomen and pelvis referring for F-18 FDG PET/CT were enrolled in this study. Standard of reference was defined as histopathology, other diagnostic procedures and a 3-month formal clinical follow up. The results of PET/CT were categorized as suggestion for primary site and additional metastasis and classified as true positive, false positive, false negative and true negative. The impact of additional metastasis revealed by F-18 FDG PET/CT on treatment planning and the time contribution of F-18 FDG PET/CT in diagnostic pathway was investigated.
Results: Sixty-two patients with mean age of 62 (30 men, 32 women), PET/CT correctly identified primary origin in 32% with false positive rate of 14.8%. No primary lesion was detected after negative PET/CT according to standard of reference. Sensitivity, Specificity and accuracy were 100%, 78% and 85%, respectively. Additional metastatic site was found in 56% with 22% impact on treatment planning. Time contribution for PET/CT was 10% of total diagnostic pathway.
Conclusion: Providing higher detection rate of primary origin with excellent diagnostic performance, shortening the diagnostic pathway and improving treatment planning, F-18 FDG PET/CT may play a major role in diagnostic work up of CUP patients and may be recommended as an alternative imaging tool in early phase of investigation.
- F-18 FDG PET/CT
- Cancer of Unknown Primary
- Diagnostic Performance
How to Cite
References
PavlidisN, Pentheroudakis G. Cancer of unknown primary site. Lancet. 2012;379:1428–352.
Pavlidis N, Fizazi K. Cancer of unknown primary. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009;69:271–80.
Pavlidisa N, Briasoulisab E, Hainsworthb, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic management of cancer of an unknown primary, European Journal of Cancer. 2003;39:1990–2005.
Shaw PH, Adams Jordan R, Crosby C. Clinical Review of the Investigation and Management of Carcinoma of Unknown Primary in a Single Cancer Network, Clinical Oncology. 2007;19:87-95.
Blaszyk H, Hartmann A, Bjornsson J. Cancer of unknown primary: clinicopathologic correlations. APMIS. 2003;111:1089-94.
Greco FA, Hainsworth JD. Cancer of unknown primary site. In: DeVita VT Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2008:2363-87.
Hainsworth JD, Fizazi K. Treatment for patients with unknown primary cancer and favorable prognostic factors. SeminOncol. 2009;36:44–51.
Krajewski1M, Jyothi P. Jagannathan1, et al. Cancer of Unknown Primary Sites: What Radiologists Need to Know and What Oncologists Want to Know Kyung Won Kim1,2, Katherine, AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(3):484–92.
Klein CA. Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(4):302–12.
Pavlidis N, Khaled H, Gaafar R. Mmini review on cancer of unknown primary site: A clinical puzzle for the oncologists. Journal of Advanced Research. 2015;6:375–82.
Pentheroudakis G, Golfinopoulos V, Pavlidis N. Switching benchmarks in cancer of unknown primary: from autopsy to microarray. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2026–36.
Al-Brahim, Nabeel. The value of postmortem examination in cases of metastasis of unknown origin—20-year retrospective data from a tertiary care center. Annals of diagnostic pathology. 2005;9(2):77-80.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network web-site, [Accessed April 2013] 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET and PET/CT Practice Guidelines in Oncology. A summary of the recommendations and practice guidelines of professional groups. April 2013.
The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Radiologists. Evidence-based indications for the use of PET-CT in the UK. London: RCP, RCR, 2013
Thomas C, Robert M. Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. European radiology. 2009;19(3):731-44.
Lee JR, Kim JS, Roh JL, et al. Detection of Occult Primary Tumors in Patients with Cervical Metastases of Unknown Primary Tumors: Comparison of 18F F-18 FDG PET/CT with Contrast-enhanced CT or CT/MR Imaging—Prospective Study." Radiology. 2014;274(3):764-71.
Regelink G, Brouwer J, de Bree R, et al. Detection of unknown primary tumours and distant metastases in patients with cervical metastases: value of FDG-PET versus conventional modalities." European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2002;29(8):1024-30.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network web-site. [Accessed April2013] NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: occult primary (cancer of unknown primary [CUP]) version 2 ,http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp
Gutzeit A, Antoch G, Kuhl H, et al. Unknown primary tumors: detection with dual-modality PET/CT--initial experience. Radiology. 2005;234:227–34.
Park JS, Yim JJ, Kang WJ. Detection of primary sites in unknown primary tumors using FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT." research notes. BMC. 2011;4(1):56.
Møller AK, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-F-18 FDG PET/CT and CT as diagnostic tools to identify the primary tumor site in patients with extracervical carcinoma of unknown primary site. Oncologist. 2012;17:1146–54.
Han A, Xue J, Hu M, et al. Clinical value of 18 F-FDG PET-CT in detecting primary tumor for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary. Cancer epidemiology. 2012;36(5):470-5.
Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology 1. Radiology. 2004;231(2):305-32.
De Bree R. "The real additional value of FDG-PET in detecting the occult primary tumour in patients with cervical lymph node metastases of unknown primary tumour." European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2010;267(11):1653-5.
Varadhachary R, Martin N. Cancer of unknown primary site. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;371(8):757-65.
Miller FR, Karnad AB, Eng T, et al. Management of the unknown primary carcinoma: Long‐term follow‐up on a negative PET scan and negative panendoscopy. Head & neck. 2008;30(1):28-34.
Shimada H, Setoguchi T, Yokouchi M, et al. Metastatic bone tumors: Analysis of factors affecting prognosis and efficacy of CT and 18F FDG PET CT in identifying primary lesions. Molecular and clinical oncology. 2014;2(5):875-81.
Park S, Lee KH, Kim SJ, et al. "Value of 18F-F-18 FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of suspected bone metastasis with an unknown primary origin." Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2015;56(3):632-5.
- Abstract Viewed: 655 times
- PDF Downloaded: 335 times