Contrast-enhanced [18∈F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology: Tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography

Silvia Morbelli, Raffaella Conzi, Claudio Campus, Giuseppe Cittadini, Irene Bossert, Michela Massollo, Giuseppe Fornarini, Iolanda Calamia, Cecilia Marini, Francesco Fiz, Chiara Ghersi, Lorenzo E. Derchi, Gianmario Sambuceti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the added value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in comparison to standard, non-enhanced CT in the context of a combined positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examination by means of a tumor-, site-, and clinical question-based approach. Methods: Analysis was performed in 202 patients undergoing PET/CT consisting of a multiphase CT protocol followed by a whole-body PET. The Cochran Q test was performed, followed by a multiple comparisons correction (McNemar test and Bonferroni adjustment), to compare standard and contrast-enhanced PET (cePET/CT). Histopathology or clinical-radiologic follow-up greater than 1 year was used as a reference. Results: cePET/CT showed significantly different results with respect to standard PET/CT in head and neck and gastrointestinal cancer (P∈=∈0.02 and 0.0002, respectively), in the evaluation of lesions located in the abdomen (P∈=∈0.009), and in the context of disease restaging (P∈=∈0.003). In all these clinical scenarios, adding ceCT resulted in a distinct benefit, by yielding a higher percentage of change in patient management. Conclusion: These data strongly underline the importance of strictly selecting patients for the combined exam. In particular, patient selection should not be driven solely by mere tumor classification, but should also account for the clinical question and the anatomical location of the neoplastic disease, which can significantly impact patient management.

Original languageEnglish
Article number10
JournalCancer Imaging
Volume14
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 22 2014

Fingerprint

Medical Oncology
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Positron-Emission Tomography
Neoplasms
Tomography
Gastrointestinal Neoplasms
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Abdomen
Patient Selection
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography

Keywords

  • <sup>18</sup> [F] fluorodeoxyglucose
  • Contrast-enhanced PET/CT
  • Gastrointestinal cancer
  • Head and neck cancer
  • PET/CT

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Contrast-enhanced [18∈F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology : Tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography. / Morbelli, Silvia; Conzi, Raffaella; Campus, Claudio; Cittadini, Giuseppe; Bossert, Irene; Massollo, Michela; Fornarini, Giuseppe; Calamia, Iolanda; Marini, Cecilia; Fiz, Francesco; Ghersi, Chiara; Derchi, Lorenzo E.; Sambuceti, Gianmario.

In: Cancer Imaging, Vol. 14, No. 1, 10, 22.04.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{faab52e7b9044be082b3c9ac7921d194,
title = "Contrast-enhanced [18∈F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology: Tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography",
abstract = "Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the added value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in comparison to standard, non-enhanced CT in the context of a combined positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examination by means of a tumor-, site-, and clinical question-based approach. Methods: Analysis was performed in 202 patients undergoing PET/CT consisting of a multiphase CT protocol followed by a whole-body PET. The Cochran Q test was performed, followed by a multiple comparisons correction (McNemar test and Bonferroni adjustment), to compare standard and contrast-enhanced PET (cePET/CT). Histopathology or clinical-radiologic follow-up greater than 1 year was used as a reference. Results: cePET/CT showed significantly different results with respect to standard PET/CT in head and neck and gastrointestinal cancer (P∈=∈0.02 and 0.0002, respectively), in the evaluation of lesions located in the abdomen (P∈=∈0.009), and in the context of disease restaging (P∈=∈0.003). In all these clinical scenarios, adding ceCT resulted in a distinct benefit, by yielding a higher percentage of change in patient management. Conclusion: These data strongly underline the importance of strictly selecting patients for the combined exam. In particular, patient selection should not be driven solely by mere tumor classification, but should also account for the clinical question and the anatomical location of the neoplastic disease, which can significantly impact patient management.",
keywords = "<sup>18</sup> [F] fluorodeoxyglucose, Contrast-enhanced PET/CT, Gastrointestinal cancer, Head and neck cancer, PET/CT",
author = "Silvia Morbelli and Raffaella Conzi and Claudio Campus and Giuseppe Cittadini and Irene Bossert and Michela Massollo and Giuseppe Fornarini and Iolanda Calamia and Cecilia Marini and Francesco Fiz and Chiara Ghersi and Derchi, {Lorenzo E.} and Gianmario Sambuceti",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1186/1470-7330-14-10",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "Cancer Imaging",
issn = "1740-5025",
publisher = "e-med",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contrast-enhanced [18∈F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology

T2 - Tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography

AU - Morbelli, Silvia

AU - Conzi, Raffaella

AU - Campus, Claudio

AU - Cittadini, Giuseppe

AU - Bossert, Irene

AU - Massollo, Michela

AU - Fornarini, Giuseppe

AU - Calamia, Iolanda

AU - Marini, Cecilia

AU - Fiz, Francesco

AU - Ghersi, Chiara

AU - Derchi, Lorenzo E.

AU - Sambuceti, Gianmario

PY - 2014/4/22

Y1 - 2014/4/22

N2 - Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the added value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in comparison to standard, non-enhanced CT in the context of a combined positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examination by means of a tumor-, site-, and clinical question-based approach. Methods: Analysis was performed in 202 patients undergoing PET/CT consisting of a multiphase CT protocol followed by a whole-body PET. The Cochran Q test was performed, followed by a multiple comparisons correction (McNemar test and Bonferroni adjustment), to compare standard and contrast-enhanced PET (cePET/CT). Histopathology or clinical-radiologic follow-up greater than 1 year was used as a reference. Results: cePET/CT showed significantly different results with respect to standard PET/CT in head and neck and gastrointestinal cancer (P∈=∈0.02 and 0.0002, respectively), in the evaluation of lesions located in the abdomen (P∈=∈0.009), and in the context of disease restaging (P∈=∈0.003). In all these clinical scenarios, adding ceCT resulted in a distinct benefit, by yielding a higher percentage of change in patient management. Conclusion: These data strongly underline the importance of strictly selecting patients for the combined exam. In particular, patient selection should not be driven solely by mere tumor classification, but should also account for the clinical question and the anatomical location of the neoplastic disease, which can significantly impact patient management.

AB - Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the added value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in comparison to standard, non-enhanced CT in the context of a combined positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examination by means of a tumor-, site-, and clinical question-based approach. Methods: Analysis was performed in 202 patients undergoing PET/CT consisting of a multiphase CT protocol followed by a whole-body PET. The Cochran Q test was performed, followed by a multiple comparisons correction (McNemar test and Bonferroni adjustment), to compare standard and contrast-enhanced PET (cePET/CT). Histopathology or clinical-radiologic follow-up greater than 1 year was used as a reference. Results: cePET/CT showed significantly different results with respect to standard PET/CT in head and neck and gastrointestinal cancer (P∈=∈0.02 and 0.0002, respectively), in the evaluation of lesions located in the abdomen (P∈=∈0.009), and in the context of disease restaging (P∈=∈0.003). In all these clinical scenarios, adding ceCT resulted in a distinct benefit, by yielding a higher percentage of change in patient management. Conclusion: These data strongly underline the importance of strictly selecting patients for the combined exam. In particular, patient selection should not be driven solely by mere tumor classification, but should also account for the clinical question and the anatomical location of the neoplastic disease, which can significantly impact patient management.

KW - <sup>18</sup> [F] fluorodeoxyglucose

KW - Contrast-enhanced PET/CT

KW - Gastrointestinal cancer

KW - Head and neck cancer

KW - PET/CT

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941194475&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941194475&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1470-7330-14-10

DO - 10.1186/1470-7330-14-10

M3 - Article

C2 - 25609564

AN - SCOPUS:84941194475

VL - 14

JO - Cancer Imaging

JF - Cancer Imaging

SN - 1740-5025

IS - 1

M1 - 10

ER -