Weight loss as primary indication for FDG-PET/CT.
Journal
Nuclear medicine communications
ISSN: 1473-5628
Titre abrégé: Nucl Med Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8201017
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
1
8
2020
medline:
6
7
2021
entrez:
1
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Some consider fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) clinically useful in patients presenting with nonspecific symptoms of malignancy, weight loss most commonly encountered. However, the appropriateness of such FDG-PET/CT studies remains to be clarified. This study evaluated the clinical value of FDG-PET/CT in patients referred primarily for weight loss. From 2010 to 2017 in one academic center, 252 subjects underwent 254 FDG-PET/CT studies for weight loss as primary indication and retrospectively studied. Eighteen subjects were excluded due to ongoing active malignancy, weight loss not ultimately being the main indication for the FDG-PET/CT, technically inadequate FDG-PET/CT and insufficient follow-up. The FDG-PET/CT scans were considered clinically beneficial when true positive for the cause of weight loss that other investigations missed or would have missed, clinically neutral when true negative and clinically detrimental when false positive leading to additional investigations or false negative. Ultimately 234 unique subjects (236 FDG-PET/CT studies) were included. The average subject weight loss prior to the PET was 12 kg and average follow-up time post FDG-PET/CT scan was 3.4 years. The FDG-PET/CT scans were true positive in 24 studies (10%) with 8 studies (3%) clinically beneficial; false positive in 38 studies (16%) of which 26 led to 35 additional procedures and false negative in 13 studies (6%). In total, 39 (17%) FDG-PET/CT studies were clinically detrimental. The other 149 (63%) studies were true negative, clinically neutral. FDG-PET/CT appears to have limited value in assessing subjects with weight loss as the leading clinical indication, proving to be five times more often detrimental than beneficial.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32732601
doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001250
pii: 00006231-202010000-00010
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
0Z5B2CJX4D
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1066-1072Références
Jørgensen SF, Ravn P, Thorsen S, Worm SW. Characteristics and outcome in patients with non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer referred to a fast track cancer patient pathway; a retrospective cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2017; 17:809
Ingeman ML, Christensen MB, Bro F, Knudsen ST, Vedsted P. The Danish cancer pathway for patients with serious non-specific symptoms and signs of cancer-a cross-sectional study of patient characteristics and cancer probability. BMC Cancer. 2015; 15:421
Nicholson BD, Hamilton W, O’Sullivan J, Aveyard P, Hobbs FR. Weight loss as a predictor of cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2018; 68:e311–e322
Lebech AM, Gaardsting A, Loft A, Graff J, Markova E, Bertelsen AK, et al. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT is superior to CT as first-line diagnostic imaging in patients referred with serious nonspecific symptoms or signs of cancer: a randomized prospective study of 200 patients. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58:1058–1064
Sheikhbahaei S, Marcus CV, Fragomeni RS, Rowe SP, Javadi MS, Solnes LB. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET and 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with suspected paraneoplastic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. J Nucl Med. 2017; 58:1031–1036
Yasuda S, Ide M, Fujii H, Nakahara T, Mochizuki Y, Takahashi W, Shohtsu A. Application of positron emission tomography imaging to cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2000; 83:1607–1611
Chen YK, Ding HJ, Su CT, Shen YY, Chen LK, Liao AC, et al. Application of PET and PEt/CT imaging for cancer screening. Anticancer Res. 2004; 24:4103–4108
Maliha PG, Hudson M, Abikhzer G, Singerman J, Probst S. 18F-FDG PET/CT versus conventional investigations for cancer screening in autoimmune inflammatory myopathy in the era of novel myopathy classifications. Nucl Med Commun. 2019; 40:377–382
Tong J, Zou Y, Jiang J, Shi W, Tao R, Ye J, et al. Cancer screening of asymptomatic individuals using 18F-FDG PET/CT in China: a retrospective study. Discov Med. 2016; 22:181–188
Younes-Mhenni S, Janier MF, Cinotti L, Antoine JC, Tronc F, Cottin V, et al. FDG-PET improves tumour detection in patients with paraneoplastic neurological syndromes. Brain. 2004; 127:2331–2338
Ide M, Suzuki Y. Is whole-body FDG-PET valuable for health screening? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005; 32:339–341
Mercaldo ND, Lau KF, Zhou XH. Confidence intervals for predictive values with an emphasis to case-control studies. Stat Med. 2007; 26:2170–2183
WHO. Early detection of cancer. WHO 2016 2016-01-21 14:21:45; Available at: https://www.who.int/cancer/detection/en/
Schöder H, Gönen M. Screening for cancer with PET and PET/CT: potential and limitations. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48Suppl 14S–18S
Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG–PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006; 98:267–274
Rasche L, Angtuaco E, McDonald JE, Buros A, Stein C, Pawlyn C, et al. Low expression of hexokinase-2 is associated with false-negative FDG-positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2017; 130:30–34
Watanabe S, Manabe O, Hirata K, Oyama-Manabe N, Hattori N, Kikuchi Y, et al. The usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for assessing methotrexate-associated lymphoproliferative disorder (MTX-LPD). BMC Cancer. 2016; 16:635
Long NM, Smith CS. Causes and imaging features of false positives and false negatives on F-PET/CT in oncologic imaging. Insights Imaging. 2011; 2:679–698
Hernández JL, Riancho JA, Matorras P, González-Macías J. Clinical evaluation for cancer in patients with involuntary weight loss without specific symptoms. Am J Med. 2003; 114:631–637
Gaddey HL, Holder K. Unintentional weight loss in older adults. Am Fam Physician. 2014; 89:718–722
Bowman JM, Claire S, Adam B. Investigation and management of unintentional weight loss in older adults. BMJ. 2011; 342:d1732
Lankisch P, Gerzmann M, Gerzmann JF, Lehnick D. Unintentional weight loss: diagnosis and prognosis. The first prospective follow-up study from a secondary referral centre. J Intern Med. 2001; 249:41–46
Metalidis C, Knockaert DC, Bobbaers H, Vanderschueren S. Involuntary weight loss. Does a negative baseline evaluation provide adequate reassurance? Eur J Intern Med. 2008; 19:345–349
Adams SJ, Rakheja R, Bryce R, Babyn PS. Incidence and economic impact of incidental findings on 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2018; 69:63–70
Bouras EP, Lange SM, Scolapio JS. Rational approach to patients with unintentional weight loss. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001; 76:923–929
Wild SF, Nicole G, Manfred F, Reinhard B, Claudia W. Evidence-based indications for the planning of PET or PET/CT capacities are needed. Clin Translational Imaging. 2019; 7:65–81