title: Value of FDG-PET/CT examinations in different cancers of children, focusing on lymphomas.
abstract: The aim of the study was to assess sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET/CT in different forms of childhood cancer. We retrospectively evaluated the results dedicated of 162 FDG-PET/CT examinations of 86 children treated with: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL; n = 31), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL; n = 30) and other high grade solid tumors (n = 25). Patients were admitted and treated in two departments of pediatric hematology and oncology in Hungary. FDG-PET/CT was performed for staging (n = 25) and for posttreatment evaluation (n = 137). Imaging was performed in three FDG-PET/CT Laboratories, using dedicated PET/CT scanners. False positive results were defined as resolution or absence of disease progression over at least 1 year on FDG-PET/CT scans without any intervention. In some cases histopathological evaluation of suspicious lesions was performed. Fals negative results were defined as negative FDG-PET/CT results in case of active malignancy. Positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. NPV was 100%. The highest PPV was observed in high grade solid tumors (81%), followed by HL (65%) and NHL (61%). There was a major difference of PPV in different histological types of HL (50% in HL of mixed-cellularity subtype, 90% in nodular sclerosing, and 100% in lymphocyte-rich and lymphocyte depleted HL). We treated one patient with nodular lymphocyte predominant HL, who had 5 false positive FDG-PET/CT results. PPV of T- and B-lineage NHL were similar (60% and 62%, respectively). We observed an interesting difference of PPV in different stages of HL and NHL. In HL PPV was higher in early than in advanced disease forms: 66% in stage II HL and 60% in stage III HL, whereas there was an inverse relationship between PPV and disease stages in NHL 0% in stage I and II patients, 67% in stage III and 100% in stage IV patients. PPV was lower in males (54%) than in females (65%). PPV were 64% vs. 58% in patients under vs. over 10 years of age. Negative FDG-PET/CT results during follow-up reliably predict the absence of malignancy. Positive FDG-PET/CT scan results in general have a low PPV. The relatively high PPV in patients with histologically proven high grade solid tumors, advanced stages of NHL and with nodular sclerosing, lymphocyte-rich and lymphocyte depleted subtypes of HL warrant a confirmation by biopsy, whereas the watch-and-wait approach can be used in other forms of childhood cancer patients with a positive FDG-PET/CT result in course of follow-up examinations.
authors: Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Institute of Pediatrics, Medical and Health Science Center, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary, editbardi@hotmail.com.
authors: Edit
authors: E
authors: Bárdi
authors: Mónika
authors: M
authors: Csóka
authors: Ildikó
authors: I
authors: Garai
authors: István
authors: I
authors: Szegedi
authors: Judit
authors: J
authors: Müller
authors: Tamás
authors: T
authors: Györke
authors: Kornélia
authors: K
authors: Kajáry
authors: Karolina
authors: K
authors: Nemes
authors: Csongor
authors: C
authors: Kiss
authors: Gábor
authors: G
authors: Kovács
mesh_terms: D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; D006801:Humans; D006814:Hungary; D008223:Lymphoma / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008297:Male; D064847:Multimodal Imaging / Q000379:methods; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000379:methods; D011859:Radiography; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D012189:Retrospective Studies
chemical_list: D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
references: Cancer. 2002 Jun 15;94(12):3277-84
references: 12115361
references: Biomed Pharmacother. 2006 Nov;60(9):593-606
references: 16978824
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Feb;38(2):274-84
references: 20848280
references: Med Pediatr Oncol. 1988;16(5):337-40
references: 3185361
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Jan;36(1):23-36
references: 18719909
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Feb;186(2):581; author reply 581-2
references: 16423975
references: Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010 Dec 1;55(6):1048-61
references: 20979168
references: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2006 May;28(5):300-6
references: 16772881
references: Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2008 Dec;51(6):828-31
references: 18680162
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Apr;184(4):1293-304
references: 15788613
references: Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010 Feb;54(2):222-7
references: 19890901
references: J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jul 20;23(21):4643-51
references: 15837966
references: Radiology. 1995 Feb;194(2):495-500
references: 7824731
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Jan;32(1):23-30
references: 15290124
references: Clin Nucl Med. 2010 Jun;35(6):400-3
references: 20479584
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007 May;34(5):630-637
references: 17048034
references: Semin Nucl Med. 2007 Sep;37(5):316-31
references: 17707239
references: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006 Aug;33(8):960-5
references: 16830120
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006 Jul-Aug;30(4):689-94
references: 16845304