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


     




J Nucl Med. 2008; 49 (Supplement 1):57P
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 De Rimini, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Muto, P.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by De Rimini, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Muto, P.

Oncology-Clinical Diagnosis: Solid Tumors

Lung Cancer II

PET/CT in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Maria Luisa De Rimini1, Sergio Piccolo1, Giovanni Borrelli1, Marco Bifulco1, Barbara Magliulo1 and Pietro Muto1

1 Diagnostic Imaging - Nuclear Medicine, AORN Monaldi, Naples, Italy

226

Objectives: At state, the role of 18F-FDG PET in the staging and in the follow-up (FU) of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has not been established. Our aim was to evaluate the role of serial 18F-FDG PET/CT in the clinical management of patients (pts) affected by malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

Methods: 70 pts (57male, 13 female) affected by or suspected of MPM underwent 18F-FDG (0.45MBq FDG/kg) PET/CT Total-Body (Siemens Biograph 16sl, 3D) as follows: -45/70pts (GrA) for diagnosis and staging; -20/70pts (GrB) in chemotherapy (ChT)FU; -5/70pts (GrC) in post-surgery plus the 3rd cycle of ChT FU. PET/CT evaluation included visual and semi-quantitative measures of tumour uptake (SUV max value >3.5 was considered abnormal). All tumors were confirmed by histopathology.

Results: GrA(45pts): When compared to histopathological findings, 31 pts with MPM showed abnormal pleural uptake (100% of true positive pts), MPM was excluded in 13/14 true negative pts (92%). When compared to CT alone, FDG-PET/CT better defined contralateral nodal involvement (N3) in 7pts and distant metastasis which were missed on CT in 4 pts, which excluded surgery in a total of 11 pts (35.4%). However, FDG-PET underestimated homolateral nodal involvement in 12 pts vs CT alone. GrB(20pts): Metabolic response assessment defined: -14 early responder pts to first line ChT (at the end of the 3rd cycle); -6 non-responder pts, inducing choice of second line ChT. In responder pts, no significant differences in homolateral nodal involvement evaluation at PET/CT and CT alone comparison. GrC(5pts): FDG-PET/CT predicted response to therapy in all pts.

Conclusions: FDG-PET-CT appears useful in the clinical management of MPM pts. It can better detect distant metastasis and contralateral nodal involvement vs CT alone and can predict metabolic response to ChT.





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 De Rimini, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Muto, P.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by De Rimini, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Muto, P.