TY - JOUR
T1 - No diagnostic impact of routinely use of respiratory gating to characterize lung nodules with 18F-FDG PET/CT
AU - Gonzalez, S.
AU - Mundler, Olivier
AU - Doddoli, Christophe
AU - Barlesi, Fabrice
AU - Tessonnier, Thomas
AU - Farman, Bardia
AU - Cammilleri, Serge
AU - Boyer, Laurent
AU - Guedj, Eric
AU - Tessonnier, Laurent
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS
PY - 2018/7/1
Y1 - 2018/7/1
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate diagnostic impact of routinely use of respiratory gated (RG) 18FDG PET/CT to distinguish benign and malignant lung nodules. Methods: We analyzed retrospectively data of 76 patients referred for metabolic characterization of lung nodules who underwent whole body 18FDG PET/CT scan followed by RG PET/CT (deep-inspiration breath-hold, DIBH). RG was prospectively planned without knowledge of WB PET/CT results. Independent reading of PET/CT scans with or without respiratory gating was separately conducted by two nuclear medicine physicians. Uptake of lung nodules was evaluated visually (positive if nodule's uptake superior to pulmonary background uptake), and quantitatively (SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic volume, tumor to background ratio). Reference standard was obtained for all patients by histology (n = 37) or clinico-radiological follow-up (n = 39). Sub-groups were also evaluated (nodule < 15 mm, lower lobe nodules). Results: Nodules were classified positives without RG scans in 43/76 (59.7%) patients and with RG scans in 41/75 (54.6%) patients. Results were discordant for 5/75 (6.7%) patients. According to the reference standard, 35/39 cancers were correctly identified by PET/CT without RG, and 34/38 by RG PET/CT. Without RG PET, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 89.7%, 78.4% and 84.2% respectively. With RG PET, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 89.5%, 81.1% and 85.3% respectively, not statistically different. Concerning quantitative analysis, results were not statistically better with RG than without RG and were not better than visual analysis. Sub-groups analysis showed no added value of RG scans in specific groups (lower lobes and smaller nodules). Conclusion: Routinely use of RG did not help in the diagnosis of neoplastic lung nodules. Others evaluations are needed to assess the contribution of RG for others selective indications (therapeutic evaluation, radiotherapy planning, characterization of liver lesions).
AB - Purpose: To evaluate diagnostic impact of routinely use of respiratory gated (RG) 18FDG PET/CT to distinguish benign and malignant lung nodules. Methods: We analyzed retrospectively data of 76 patients referred for metabolic characterization of lung nodules who underwent whole body 18FDG PET/CT scan followed by RG PET/CT (deep-inspiration breath-hold, DIBH). RG was prospectively planned without knowledge of WB PET/CT results. Independent reading of PET/CT scans with or without respiratory gating was separately conducted by two nuclear medicine physicians. Uptake of lung nodules was evaluated visually (positive if nodule's uptake superior to pulmonary background uptake), and quantitatively (SUVmax, SUVmean, metabolic volume, tumor to background ratio). Reference standard was obtained for all patients by histology (n = 37) or clinico-radiological follow-up (n = 39). Sub-groups were also evaluated (nodule < 15 mm, lower lobe nodules). Results: Nodules were classified positives without RG scans in 43/76 (59.7%) patients and with RG scans in 41/75 (54.6%) patients. Results were discordant for 5/75 (6.7%) patients. According to the reference standard, 35/39 cancers were correctly identified by PET/CT without RG, and 34/38 by RG PET/CT. Without RG PET, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 89.7%, 78.4% and 84.2% respectively. With RG PET, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 89.5%, 81.1% and 85.3% respectively, not statistically different. Concerning quantitative analysis, results were not statistically better with RG than without RG and were not better than visual analysis. Sub-groups analysis showed no added value of RG scans in specific groups (lower lobes and smaller nodules). Conclusion: Routinely use of RG did not help in the diagnosis of neoplastic lung nodules. Others evaluations are needed to assess the contribution of RG for others selective indications (therapeutic evaluation, radiotherapy planning, characterization of liver lesions).
KW - FDG
KW - Lung cancer
KW - Lung nodule
KW - PET/CT
KW - Respiratory gating
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85051371846&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.mednuc.2018.06.006
DO - 10.1016/j.mednuc.2018.06.006
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85051371846
SN - 0928-1258
VL - 42
SP - 206
EP - 213
JO - Medecine Nucleaire
JF - Medecine Nucleaire
IS - 4
ER -