Comparative impact of standard approach, FDG PET and FDG dual-head coincidence gamma camera imaging in preoperative staging of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.
We prospectively compared the impact of the standard approach, of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET) and of FDG dual-head coincidence gamma camera imaging (DHC) in preoperative staging of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In addition to traditional staging, 42 patients were studied with a PET system and a DHC system. The number of lesions detected on DHC and on PET were compared independently of the proof of a tumoural invasion. Then, for the sub-group of lesions with the proof of a tumoural invasion, the sensitivity of the different imaging modalities was compared. Finally, stagings were compared with final staging established by histopathological findings (n=28), additional imaging modalities (n=4), clinical and traditional imaging follow-up over at least 4 months. DHC detected 105 of the 145 lesions considered as pathological on PET (73%, P=0.01), with a concurrence of 89% (NS) in lesions larger than 1.5 cm, and only 17% (P=0.03) in those smaller or equal to 1 cm. Traditional staging detected 87 of the 114 verified tumoural lesions (76%), PET 110/114 (96%, P=0.01 vs traditional staging), DHC 88/114 (77%, NS vs traditional staging, P=0.01 vs PET). PET correctly predicted the N stage in 39/42 (93%) patients, DHC in 38/42 (90%), and computed tomography in 32/42 (76%). PET correctly predicted the M stage in 42/42 (100%) patients, DHC in 41/42 (98%), and traditional staging in 38/42 (90%). Identical NM staging was obtained with DHC and PET in 38/42 (90%) patients. Compared to traditional NM staging, PET correctly up-staged 9/42 (21%) patients and down-staged 3/42 (7%), with one additional false N up-staging. DHC correctly up-staged 7/42 (17%) patients and down-staged 3/42 (7%), with one additional false N down-staging. PET correctly reclassified 4/42 (9.5%) patients from resectable to unresectable and incorrectly reclassified one. DHC correctly reclassified 3/42 (7%) patients without false therapeutic reclassification. Although DHC detected fewer lesions than PET, DHC is a possible alternative to PET since the impact on staging was high as compared with traditional staging and was very similar to that of PET.
Delahaye
N
N
Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Hôpital Bichat, AP-HP, Paris, France. nicolas.delahaye@laposte.net
Crestani
B
B
Rakotonirina
H
H
Lebtahi
R
R
Sarda
L
L
Girard
P
P
Charpentier
E
E
Fery-Lemonnier
E
E
Syrota
A
A
Aubier
M
M
Le Guludec
D
D
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002289:Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005260:Female; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; D015902:Gamma Cameras; D006801:Humans; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging / Q000379:methods; D011300:Preoperative Care / Q000379:methods; D011877:Radionuclide Imaging / Q000379:methods; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014055:Tomography, Emission-Computed / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*
D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18