Contrast-enhanced [18 F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in clinical oncology: tumor-, site-, and question-based comparison with standard positron emission tomography/computed tomography

Abstract

Background The present study aimed to evaluate the added value of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in comparison to standard, non-enhanced CT in the context of a combined positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examination by means of a tumor-, site-, and clinical question-based approach. Methods Analysis was performed in 202 patients undergoing PET/CT consisting of a multiphase CT protocol followed by a whole-body PET. The Cochran Q test was performed, followed by a multiple comparisons correction (McNemar test and Bonferroni adjustment), to compare standard and contrast-enhanced PET (cePET/CT). Histopathology or clinical-radiologic follow-up greater than 1 year was used as a reference. Results cePET/CT showed significantly different results with respect to standard PET/CT in head and neck and gastrointestinal cancer ( P = 0.02 and 0.0002, respectively), in the evaluation of lesions located in the abdomen ( P = 0.009), and in the context of disease restaging ( P = 0.003). In all these clinical scenarios, adding ceCT resulted in a distinct benefit, by yielding a higher percentage of change in patient management. Conclusion These data strongly underline the importance of strictly selecting patients for the combined exam. In particular, patient selection should not be driven solely by mere tumor classification, but should also account for the clinical question and the anatomical location of the neoplastic disease, which can significantly impact patient management.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for breast cancer recurrence

“…In this context, as CT might be more to detect smaller lesions, also ones within the liver, hybrid imaging with FDG PET and full diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT has been proposed and might be of use in selected cases. 59 However, it has to be underlined that MRI has been demonstrated to be superior to both CT and FDG PET for the detection of small liver lesions with the use of hepatic-specific MR contrast agents. 60 …”

Benefit of Contrast-Enhanced PET/CT versus Non-Contrast-Enhanced PET/CT Relative to Lesion Detection, Lesion Characterization, and Diagnostic Accuracy in Patients with Cancer

“…Fourth and last, contrast-enhanced PET/CT in this study was performed in singlephase manner, so our results may not be generalizable to multi-phase contrast-enhanced PET/CT, which was previously suggested by some authors. (17) In contrast to other reports that studied in specific types of cancer, the strengths of this study are its prospective design and the fact that we studied different types of cancer, which increases the generalizability of our findings. However, further investigation in those cancers with a small number of cases, as well as in other indications, is needed to confirm the results of this study.…”

Clinical Value of Surveillance 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT for Detecting Unsuspected Recurrence or Second Primary Cancer in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer after Curative Therapy

“…Actually, SUV could be underestimated in malignant pleural effusion with small cell component, small pulmonary nodule, or ground-glass lesion [31,32]. Three falsenegative cases of this study were also pleural and pulmonary metastasis, which could be found in follow-up chest CT. Additional contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) may also serve as a complementary tool by discerning vessel or bowel activity [33]. However, the increased cost and radiation exposure can outweigh the perceived benefit.…”