Pelosi Ettore, Messa Cristina, Sironi Sandro, Picchio Maria, Landoni Claudio, Bettinardi Valentino, Gianolli Luigi, Del Maschio Alessandro, Gilardi Maria Carla, Fazio Ferruccio
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Institute H S. Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004 Jul;31(7):932-9. doi: 10.1007/s00259-004-1483-3. Epub 2004 Feb 27.
The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare the value of integrated PET/CT and separate PET plus morphological imaging studies for lesion localisation in cancer patients. Two different series of consecutive patients who had previously been treated for neoplastic disease were considered. One series consisted of 105 patients who had undergone [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT ( n=70) or [(11)C]choline PET/CT ( n=35) studies (PET/CT group). The other series comprised 105 patients who had undergone FDG PET scan ( n=70) or [(11)C]choline PET scan ( n=35) alone; in this series, PET findings were correlated with the results of morphological imaging (MI) studies, i.e. CT ( n=92) or MR imaging ( n=13) (PET+MI group). Regions of abnormal tracer uptake at PET scanning were classified as ambiguous or unambiguous depending on their precise anatomical localisation. A total of 207 and 196 lesions were found in the PET/CT and PET+MI groups, respectively. The difference in terms of number of lesions per patient detected with the two imaging protocols was not statistically significant ( P=0.718). When analysis of lesion localisation was performed, there were 7/207 (3.4%) and 30/196 (15.3%) ambiguous lesions in the PET/CT and PET+MI groups, respectively. The number of ambiguous lesions was significantly higher in the PET+MI group than in the PET/CT group (chi(2)=15.768, P<0.0001). Comparison of the effect of use of the different tracers on reporting of PET/CT versus PET+MI revealed that the improvement in the final report in [(11)C]choline PET/CT studies was similar to that observed in [(18)F]FDG studies. In cancer patients, PET/CT shows higher diagnostic accuracy for lesion localisation than PET plus morphological imaging studies performed independently. This result does not seem to be affected by the type of tracer used.
本研究的目的是回顾性比较PET/CT一体化检查与PET单独检查加形态学成像检查在癌症患者病变定位中的价值。我们纳入了两组曾接受过肿瘤疾病治疗的连续患者。一组为105例接受过[¹⁸F]氟脱氧葡萄糖(FDG)PET/CT(n = 70)或[¹¹C]胆碱PET/CT(n = 35)检查的患者(PET/CT组)。另一组为105例仅接受过FDG PET扫描(n = 70)或[¹¹C]胆碱PET扫描(n = 35)的患者;在该组中,PET检查结果与形态学成像(MI)检查结果相关,即CT(n = 92)或磁共振成像(n = 13)(PET + MI组)。根据PET扫描时示踪剂摄取异常区域的精确解剖定位,将其分类为不明确或明确。PET/CT组和PET + MI组分别共发现207个和196个病变。两种成像方案检测到的每位患者病变数量差异无统计学意义(P = 0.718)。在进行病变定位分析时,PET/CT组和PET + MI组分别有7/207(3.4%)和30/196(15.3%)个不明确病变。PET + MI组的不明确病变数量显著高于PET/CT组(χ² = 15.768,P < 0.0001)。比较不同示踪剂在PET/CT与PET + MI报告中的应用效果发现,[¹¹C]胆碱PET/CT检查最终报告的改善与[¹⁸F]FDG检查相似。在癌症患者中,PET/CT在病变定位方面的诊断准确性高于单独进行的PET加形态学成像检查。这一结果似乎不受所用示踪剂类型的影响。