Community Forum top_calendar.gif top_members.gif top_faq.gif top_search.gif top_home.gif    

Go Back   Community Forum > The Internet Medical Journal > News
User Name
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old January 18th, 2005, 10:51
sysadmin sysadmin is offline
Join Date: 2001
Posts: 1,085
FDG-PET in Lung Cancer (Dr. Alan Waxman)

[ACNP 31st Annual Meeting] Areas of controversy of the use of FDG-PET in lung cancer include the use of SUV's in determining whether or not a solitary pulmonary nodule is benign or malignant; what is the role of image fusion; software vs. hardware fusion; pulmonary nodules < 10 mm. At Cedars-Sinai, they perform about 5 thoracic surgeries a day for lung cancer. Dr. Waxman in this talk discussed his experience with lung cancer and PET.

Lots of be benign lesions have high SUV's, and lots of cancers have low SUV's. There is a lot of overlap, and therefore a specific cutoff value should not be used. There is a trend to higher SUV's (and a statistically significant difference) but in individual patients a cutoff value isn't that useful.

If you use any visual focus as defining a lung cancer, the sens=99% but spec = 32%.

Using a 2.5 SUV(max) cutoff, sens = 76% and spec = 43%

Looking at SUV ratios of tumor to background, a cutoff of 1.4 had an accuracy of about 86%

Software fusion is rapidly advancing; the Mirada software appears to work well. If you have control over the CT and the PET scanner, and you can make sure that the patient is positioned the same on both scans, the image fusion SOFTWARE works great. "Fusion, by any means" works great according to Dr. Waxman.


SUV's should be viewed as a probability assessment - do not use cutoffs

Both software and hardware fusion can have registration errors.

Fusion (by any means) helps especially for the hilum and mediastinum.

PET/CT helps the radiologists improve their reading of the CT, as well as help the nuclear physician improve their reading of the PET scan.

Last edited by sysadmin : January 18th, 2005 at 11:24.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
False-positive PET scan in a patient with lipoid pneumonia simulating lung cancer sysadmin News 0 September 27th, 2004 21:06
Bone Scans More Sensitive, PET Scans More Specific in Lung Cancer Metastases sysadmin News 0 August 30th, 2004 19:27
FDG PET Effective in Determining the Response to Therapy in Gastroesophageal Cancer sysadmin News 0 August 30th, 2004 19:23
Meta-analysis Concludes FDG PET is Superior to Conventional Imaging in Lung Cancer sysadmin News 0 July 5th, 2003 09:44
PET Detects Unexpected Metastatic Disease in 11% of NSC Lung Cancer Patients sysadmin News 0 July 5th, 2003 09:04

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:06.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint.  
- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

We are committed to your good health. That means that while we provide editorial medical information, we must insist that you work with your own doctor in regards to your personal health issues. All content on Medjournal.Com is strictly editorial. It constitutes medical opinion, NOT ADVICE. We do not endorse or recommend the content of or the sites that are linked FROM or TO Use common sense by consulting with your doctor before making any lifestyle changes or other medical decisions based on the content of these web pages. Medjournal.Com and the Internet Medical Journal shall not be held liable for any errors in content, advertising, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.