Abstract
Objective
The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the diagnostic value of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG PET)/CT versus 18F-FDG PET and CT alone for staging and restaging of pediatric solid tumors.
Methods
Forty-three children and adolescents (19 females and 24 males; mean age, 15.2 years; age range, 6–20 years) with osteosarcoma (n = 1), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 1), synovial sarcoma (n = 2), germ cell tumor (n = 2), neuroblastoma (n = 2), desmoid tumor (n = 2), melanoma (n = 3), rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 5), Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 7), non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (n = 9), and Ewing’s sarcoma (n = 9) who had undergone 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for primary staging or follow-up of metastases were included in this study. The presence, location, and size of primary tumors was determined separately for PET/CT, PET, and CT by two experienced reviewers. The diagnosis of the primary tumor was confirmed by histopathology. The presence or absence of metastases was confirmed by histopathology (n = 62) or clinical and imaging follow-up (n = 238).
Results
The sensitivities for the detection of solid primary tumors using integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT (95%), 18F-FDG PET alone (73%), and CT alone (93%) were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Seventeen patients showed a total of 153 distant metastases. Integrated PET/CT had a significantly higher sensitivity for the detection of these metastases (91%) than PET alone (37%; p < 0.05), but not CT alone (83%; p > 0.05). When lesions with a diameter of less than 0.5 cm were excluded, PET/CT (89%) showed a significantly higher specificity compared to PET (45%; p < 0.05) and CT (55%; p < 0.05). In a sub-analysis of pulmonary metastases, the values for sensitivity and specificity were 90%, 14%, 82% and 63%, 78%, 65%, respectively, for integrated PET/CT, stand-alone PET, and stand-alone CT. For the detection of regional lymph node metastases, 18F-FDG PET/CT, 18F-FDG PET alone, and CT alone were diagnostically correct in 83%, 61%, and 42%. A sub-analysis focusing on the ability of PET/CT, PET, and CT to detect osseous metastases showed no statistically significant difference between the three imaging modalities (p > 0.05).
Conclusion
Our study showed a significantly increased sensitivity of PET/CT over that of PET for the detection of distant metastases but not over that of CT alone. However, the specificity of PET/CT for the characterization of pulmonary metastases with a diameter > 0.5 cm and lymph node metastases with a diameter of <1 cm was significantly increased over that of CT alone.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ross JA, Severson RK, Pollock BH, Robison LL. Childhood cancer in the United States. A geographical analysis of cases from the Pediatric Cooperative Clinical Trials groups. Cancer 1996;77:201–7.
Schöder H, Yeung HW, Larson SM. CT in PET/CT: essential features of interpretation. J Nucl Med 2005;46:13525–5.
Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, Dahmen G, Mueller SP, Beyer T, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality FDG-PET/CT for tumor staging solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4357–68.
Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, Gaitini D, Frenkel A, Kuten A, et al. Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1200–9.
Pauls S, Buck AK, Hohl K, Halter G, Hetzel M, Blumstein NM, et al. Improved non-invasive T-staging in non-small cell lung cancer by integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT. Nuklearmedizin 2007;46:9–14. quiz N1–2.
Jadvar H, Connolly LP, Fahey FH, Shulkin BL. PET and PET/CT in pediatric oncology. Semin Nucl Med 2007;37:316–31.
Franzius C, Juergens KU, Schober O. Is PET/CT necessary in paediatric oncology? For Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:960–5.
McCarville MB, Christie R, Daw NC, Spunt SL, Kaste SC. PET/CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcomas. AJR AM J Roentgenol 2006;184:1293–304.
Arush MW, Israel O, Postovsky S, Militianu D, Meller I, Zaidman I, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography with (18) fluoro-deoxyglucose in the detection of local recurrence and distant metastases of pediatric sarcoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;49:901–5.
Franzius C, Juergens KU, Vormoor J. PET/CT with diagnostic CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcoma. AJR AM J Roentgenol 2006;186:581. author reply 581–2.
Bar-Sever Z, Keidar Z, Ben-Barak A, Bar-Shalom R, Postovsky S, Guralnik L, et al. The incremental value of (18) F-FDG PET/CT in pediatric malignancies. EUR J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:628–9.
Schaefer NG, Taverna C, Strobel K, Wastl C, Kurrer M, Hany TF. Hodgkin disease: diagnostic value of FDG PET/CT after first-line therapy—is biopsy of FDG avid lesions still needed? Radiology 2007;244:257–62.
Miller E, Metser U, Avrahami G, Dvir R, Valdman D, Sira LB, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging and follow-up of lymphoma in pediatric and young adult patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:689–94.
Rhodes MM, Delbeke D, Whitlock JA, Martin W, Kuttesch JF, Frangoul HA, et al. Utility of FDG PET/CT in follow-up of children treated for Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2006;28:300–6.
Daldrup-Link HE, Franzius C, Link TM, Laukamp D, Sciuk J, Jürgens H, et al. Whole body MR imaging for detection of bone metastases in children and young adults: comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET. AJR AM J Roentgenol 2001;177:229–36.
Kauffman WM, Fletcher BD, Hanna SL, Meyer WH. MR imaging findings in recurrent primary osseous Ewing sarcoma. Magn Reson Imaging 1994;12:1147–53.
Shah Syed GM, Naseer H, Usmani GN, Cheema MA. Role of iodine-131 MIBG scanning in the management of paediatric patients with neuroblastoma. Med Princ Pract 2004;13:196–200.
Hahn K, Charron M, Shulkin BL. Role of MR imaging and iodine 123 MIBG scintigraphy in staging of pediatric neuroblastoma. Radiology 2003;227:908.
De Wever W, Ceyssens S, Mortelmans L, Stroobants S, Marchal G, Bogaert J, et al. Additional value of PET-CT in the staging of lung cancer: comparison with CT alone, PET alone and visual correlation of PET and CT. Eur Radiol 2007;17:23–32.
Matthies A, Hickeson M, Cuchiara A, Alavi A. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. J Nucl Med 2002;43:871–5.
Juergens KU, Weckesser M, Stegger L, Franzius C, Beetz M, Schober O, et al. Tumor staging using whole body high resolution 16-channel PET/CT: does additional low dose chest CT in inspiration improve the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules? Eur Radiol 2006;16:1131–7.
Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002;225:575–81.
Blodgett TM, Ames JT, Torok FS, McCook BM, Meltzer CC. Diffuse bone marrow uptake on whole body F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patient taking recombinant erythropoietin. Clin Nucl Med 2004;29:161–3.
Sugawara Y, Fisher SJ, Zasadny KR, Kison PV, Baker LH, Wahl RL. Preclinical and clinical studies of bone marrow uptake of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:173–80.
Abouzied MM, Crawford ES, Nabi HA. 18F-FDG imaging: pitfalls and artifacts. J Nucl Med Technol 2005;33:145–55. quiz 162–3.
Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics 1999;19:61–77. quiz 150–1.
Olson PN, Everson LI, Griffiths HJ. Staging of musculoskeletal tumors. Radiol Clin North Am 1994;32:151–62.
Silberstein E, Saenger E, Tofe AJ, Alexander GW Jr, Park HM. Imaging of bone metastases with 99 mTc-Sn-EHDP (diphosphonate), 18F and skeletal radiography. Radiology 1973;107:551–5.
Yeung HW, Grewal RK, Gonen M, Schöder H, Larson SM. Patterns of (18)F-FDG uptake in adipose tissue and muscle: a potential source of false-positives for PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1789–96.
Gelfand MJ, O’hara SM, Curtwright LA, Mclean JR. Pre-medication to block [(18)F] FDG uptake in the brown adipose tissue of pediatric and adolescent patients. Pediatr Radiology 2005;35:984–90.
Söderlund V, Larsson SA, Jacobsson H. Reduction of FDG uptake in brown adipose tissue in clinical patients by a single dose of propanolol. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1018–22.
Garcia CA, Van Nostrand D, Atkins F, Acio E, Butler C, Esposito G, et al. Reduction of brown fat 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose uptake by controlling environmental temperature prior to positron emission tomography scan. Mol Imaging Biol 2006;8:24–9.
Von Schulthess GK, Hany TF. Imaging and PET-PET/CT imaging. J Radiol 2008;89:438–47. quiz 448.
Visvikis D, Costa DC, Croasdale I, Lonn AH, Bomanji J, Gacinovic S, et al. CT-based attenuation correction in the calculation of semi-quantative indices of [18] FDG uptake in PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:344–53.
Ay MR, Zaidi H. Assessment of errors caused by X-ray scatter and use of contrast medium when using CT-based attenuation correction in PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:1301–13.
Cohade C, Wahl RL. Applications of positron emission tomography/computed tomography image fusion in clinical positron emission tomography—clinical use, interpretation methods, diagnostic improvements. Semin Nucl Med 2003;33:228–37.
Vera P, Ouvrier MJ, Hapdey S, Thillays M, Pesquet AS, Diologent B, et al. Does chemotherapy influence the quantification of SUV when contrast-enhanced CT is used in PET/CT in lymphoma? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1943–52.
Bunyaviroch T, Turkington TG, Wong TZ, Wilson JW, Colsher JG, Coleman RE. Quantitative effects of contrast enhanced CT attenuation correction on PET SUV measurements. Mol Imaging Biol 2008;10:107–13.
Kinahan PE, Hasegawa BH, Beyer T. X-ray-based attenuation correction for positron emission tomography/computed tomography scanners. Semin Nucl Med 2003;33:166–79.
Ahmadian A, Ay MR, Bidgoli JH, Sarkar S, Zaidi H. Correction of oral contrast artifacts in CT-based attenuation correction of PET images using an automated segmentation algorithm. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;5:3542–7.
Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Burger C. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. J Nucl Med 2003;44:732–8.
Yau YY, Chan WS, Tam YM, Vernon P, Wong S, Coel M, et al. Application of intravenous contrast in PET/CT: does it really introduce significant attenuation correction error? J Nucl Med 2005;46:283–91.
Berthelsen AK, Holm S, Loft A, Klausen TL, Andersen F, Hǿjgaard L. PET/CT with intravenous contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction in cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:1167–75.
Kleinermann RA. Cancer risks following diagnostic and therapeutic radiation exposure in children. Pediatr Radiol 2006;36(suppl):121–5.
Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, Ziegler SI, Münzing W, Müller SP, et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 2005;46:608–13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kleis, M., Daldrup-Link, H., Matthay, K. et al. Diagnostic value of PET/CT for the staging and restaging of pediatric tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36, 23–36 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-0911-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-008-0911-1