1. To Enhance or Not to Enhance? The Role of Contrast Medium
- Author
-
Francesco Paparo, Francesco Fiz, Cristina Puppo, Nicoletta Provinciali, Giorgio Treglia, Angelina Cistaro, Michela Massollo, Martina Ugolini, Manlio Cabria, Massimiliano Iacozzi, Arnoldo Piccardo, Vania Altrinetti, Gianluca Bottoni, and Andrea Decensi
- Subjects
Medicine (General) ,PET/CT ,FDG ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,Article ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,R5-920 ,0302 clinical medicine ,Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 ,Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography ,medicine ,Humans ,In patient ,Lymph node ,Retrospective Studies ,relapse ,PET-CT ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Carcinoma ,General Medicine ,medicine.disease ,Contrast medium ,ovarian cancer ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,Positron emission tomography ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Positron-Emission Tomography ,contrast enhancement ,Ovarian carcinomas ,Fdg pet ct ,Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ,Radiopharmaceuticals ,business ,Nuclear medicine ,Ovarian cancer ,Tomography, X-Ray Computed - Abstract
Background and Objectives: 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/X-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) represents the mainstay diagnostic procedure for suspected ovarian cancer (OC) recurrence. PET/CT can be integrated with contrast medium and in various diagnostic settings, however, the effective benefit of this procedure is still debated. We aimed to compare the diagnostic capabilities of low-dose and contrast-enhanced PET/CT (PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT) in patients with suspected ovarian cancer relapse. Materials and Methods: 122 OC patients underwent both PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT. Two groups of nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists scored the findings as positive or negative. Clinical/radiological follow-up was used as ground truth. Sensitivity, specificity, negative/positive predictive value, and accuracy were calculated at the patient and the lesion level. Results: A total of 455 and 474 lesions were identified at PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT, respectively. At the lesion level, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were not significantly different between PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT (98%, 93.3%, 97.4%, 94.9%, and 96.9% for PET/ldCT, 99%, 95.5%, 98.3%, 97%, and 98% for PET/ceCT, p = ns). At the patient level, no significant differences in these parameters were identified (e.g., p = 0.22 and p = 0.35 for accuracy, in the peritoneum and lymph nodes, respectively). Smaller peritoneal/lymph node lesions close to physiological FDG uptake sources were found in the cases of misidentification by PET/ldCT. PET/ceCT prompted a change in clinical management in four cases (3.2%) compared to PET/ldCT. Conclusions: PET/ceCT does not perform better than PET/ldCT but can occasionally clarify doubtful peritoneal findings on PET/ldCT. To avoid unnecessary dose to the patient, PET/ceCT should be excluded in selected cases.
- Published
- 2021