A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of 3'-deoxy-3'-[¹⁸F]fluorothymidine positron emission tomography (FLT PET) and FDG PET/CT for the detection and characterization of pancreatic tumours. | LitMetric

Purpose: Despite recent advances in clinical imaging modalities, differentiation of pancreatic masses remains difficult. Here, we tested the diagnostic accuracy of molecular-based imaging including 3'-deoxy-3'-[(18)F]fluorothymidine (FLT) positron emission tomography (PET) and [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT in patients with suspected pancreatic masses scheduled to undergo surgery.

Methods: A total of 46 patients with pancreatic tumours suspicious for malignancy and scheduled for resective surgery were recruited prospectively. In 41 patients, FLT PET and FDG PET/CT scans were performed. A diagnostic CT performed on a routine basis was available in 31 patients. FLT PET and FDG PET/CT emission images were acquired according to standard protocols. Tracer uptake in the tumour [FDG and FLT standardized uptake value (SUV)] was quantified by the region of interest (ROI) technique. For FDG PET/CT analysis, correct ROI placement was ensured via side-by-side reading of corresponding CT images.

Results: Of 41 patients, 33 had malignancy, whereas 8 patients had benign disease. Visual analysis of FDG and FLT PET resulted in sensitivity values of 91% (30/33) and 70% (23/33), respectively. Corresponding specificities were 50% (4/8) for FDG PET and 75% (6/8) for FLT PET. In the subgroup of patients with contrast-enhanced CT (n = 31), sensitivities were 96% (PET/CT), 88% (CT alone), 92% (FDG PET) and 72% (FLT PET), respectively. Mean FLT uptake in all malignant tumours was 3.0 (range SUV(max) 1.1-6.5; mean FDG SUV(max) 7.9, range 3.3-17.8; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: For differentiation of pancreatic tumours, FDG PET and FDG PET/CT showed a higher sensitivity but lower specificity than FLT PET. Interestingly, visual analysis of FLT PET led to two false-positive findings by misinterpreting physiological bowel uptake as pathological FLT uptake in the pancreas. Due to the limited number of patients, the clinical value of adding FLT PET to the diagnostic workup of pancreatic tumours remains to be determined.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2061-8DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

flt pet
36
fdg pet/ct
24
pet fdg
16
pancreatic tumours
16
flt
13
pet
13
fdg pet
12
fdg
11
positron emission
8
emission tomography
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!