SNM Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     



J Nucl Med. 2008; 49 (Supplement 1):259P
This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huang, Y.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, M.-Y.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Huang, Y.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, M.-Y.

General Clinical Specialties: General Practice-Oncology

General Practice-Oncology Posters

Larger difference of performance between FDG-PET and Ga-67 scan in detecting recurrence than in initial staging of lymphoma

Yu-Yi Huang1, Dong-Ling You1, Mei-Jean Liu2, Pei-Ing Lee1 and Ming-Yuan Lee3

1 Nuclear Medicine; 2 Medical Oncology; 3 Pathology, Koo-Foundation, Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center, Taipei, Taiwan

1106

Objectives: FDG-PET(PET) had been proved to have excellent performance in staging and restaging after recurrence of lymphoma. There are some studies to compare the performance between PET and Ga-67 scan (GS) and showed better performance of PET. However, most of these were comparisons of the difference between different histological types. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference of performance of these two scans between initial staging and recurrence of lymphoma.

Methods: From July 2002 to May 2006, 42 patients with lymphoma are included. Every patients have one or more PET scans with corresponding GS performed within 7 days for initial staging or recurrence of lymphoma. Forty-six pairs of PET and GS scans were included for comparison, which is based on the detection of lesion sites.

Results: Twenty-seven pairs of scans were for initial staging of lymphoma, and 19 were for detecting recurrent lymphoma. PET detected 230 lesion sites and GS detected 85 lesion sites in all patients. All lesions detected by GS were also detected by PET. In initial staing, PET detected 120 and GS detected 68(56.7%) lesion sites. In recurrent lymphoma, PET detected 110 and GS detected 17(15.5%) lesion sites.

Conclusions: Larger difference of performance between PET and GS was noted in detecting recurrent lymphoma than in initial staging. It may suggest to use PET, rather than GS, in post-treatment survellance in high risk group patient.





This Article
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huang, Y.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, M.-Y.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Huang, Y.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, M.-Y.