2001
DOI: 10.1159/000049823
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnosis and Monitoring of Urological Tumors Using Positron Emission Tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
13
0
5

Year Published

2002
2002
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(37 reference statements)
0
13
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Heicappell et al [11] reported a series of 8 TCC patients; 3 patients had nodal metastases, of whom 2 showed increased uptake by PET for a sensitivity of 66.7%. However, most investigators have felt the use of FDG PET has limited usefulness for metastatic urothelial tumors due to the erratic uptake of the isotope [5][6][7][8] . Our fi ndings support the opinion that FDG PET is unreliable for the detection of metastatic TCC fol- lowing chemotherapy but uptake is not as erratic in untreated metastatic TCC.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Heicappell et al [11] reported a series of 8 TCC patients; 3 patients had nodal metastases, of whom 2 showed increased uptake by PET for a sensitivity of 66.7%. However, most investigators have felt the use of FDG PET has limited usefulness for metastatic urothelial tumors due to the erratic uptake of the isotope [5][6][7][8] . Our fi ndings support the opinion that FDG PET is unreliable for the detection of metastatic TCC fol- lowing chemotherapy but uptake is not as erratic in untreated metastatic TCC.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…False-negative and the unsatisfactory sensitivity may be given in following conditions. Micro-tumor and micrometastases have lower uptake values which might be masked by the higher uptake of the primary tumor, which can infect the false-negative results (Hoekstra et al, 1993;Cremerius et al, 1998;Hofer et al, 2001;Spermon et al, 2002;Antoch et al, 2004). In addition, timing of the PET scan is important, for patients examined within 10-14 days of chemotherapy may result in false-negative (Cremerius et al, 1998, Hain, 2005.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…51 Thus, PET currently only has a role in evaluating aggressive advanced prostate cancer patients. However, recent efforts suggest a promising role for PET imaging in prostate cancer patients with recurrent disease at PSA relapse using 11-C-acetate, 52 and more recently, 11-C-choline.…”
Section: Discussion/future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 99%