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

Diagnostic value of [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor versus [ 18 F]FDG PET/CTs in non-small cell lung cancer: a head-to-head comparative study. | LitMetric

Objective: In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic value of [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor and [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Methods: Patients with pathology-proven NSCLC were prospectively included. Patients underwent [ 18 F]FDG and [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT within 1 week. All suspicious lesions were interpreted as benign or malignant, and the corresponding PET/CT semi-quantitative parameters were recorded. A two-sided P -value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Twelve consecutive NSCLC patients (mean age: 60 ± 7) were included. All patients underwent both [ 18 F]FDG and [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT scans with a median interval of 2 days. Overall, 73 abnormal lesions were detected, from which 58 (79%) were concordant between [ 18 F]FDG and [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT. All primary tumors were clearly detectable in both scans visually. Also, [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT demonstrated rather comparable results with [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT scan in detecting metastatic lesions. However, malignant lesions demonstrated significantly higher SUVmax and SUVmean in [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT ( P -values <0.05). Regarding the advantages, [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor depicted two brain metastases that were missed by [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT. Also, a highly suspicious lesion for recurrence on [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT scan was correctly classified as benign by subsequent [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT.

Conclusion: [ 68 Ga]Ga-Pentixafor PET/CT was concordant with [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT in detecting primary NSCLC tumors and could visualize the majority of metastatic lesions. Moreover, this modality was found to be potentially helpful in excluding tumoural lesions when the [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT was equivocal, as well as in detecting brain metastasis where [ 18 F]FDG PET/CT suffers from poor sensitivity. However, the count statistics were significantly lower.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000001719DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

diagnostic ga]ga-pentixafor
8
non-small cell
8
cell lung
8
lung cancer
8
ga]ga-pentixafor versus
4
versus f]fdg
4
f]fdg pet/cts
4
pet/cts non-small
4
cancer head-to-head
4
head-to-head comparative
4

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!