Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 21, Issue 21
(November), 2003: 3995-4000
© 2003 American Society for Clinical Oncology
F-18 Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in the Evaluation of Distant Metastases From Renal Cell Carcinoma
Navneet S. Majhail,
Jean-Luc Urbain,
Justin M. Albani,
Mangesh H. Kanvinde,
Thomas W. Rice,
Andrew C. Novick,
Tarek M. Mekhail,
Thomas E. Olencki,
Paul Elson,
Ronald M. Bukowski
From the Departments of Internal Medicine, Nuclear Medicine, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, and Biostatistics and Epidemiology, and Glickman Urological Institute and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.
Address reprint requests to Ronald M. Bukowski, MD, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Desk R 33, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195, e-mail: bukowsr{at}ccf.org.
Purpose: We conducted a study to evaluate the role of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the detection of distant metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients with histologically proven clear-cell RCC undergoing surgical evaluation for possible resection of recurrent disease were investigated. All patients had suspected distant metastases based on conventional anatomic imaging techniques (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging). A total of 36 distant metastatic sites were identified. Pathology for all sites was obtained by biopsy or after surgical resection.
Results: Histologically documented distant metastases from RCC were present in 33 sites (21 patients). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of FDG-PET for the detection of distant metastases from RCC was 63.6% (21 of 33), 100% (three of three), and 100% (21 of 21), respectively. The mean size of distant metastases in patients with true-positive FDG-PET was 2.2 cm (95% CI, 1.7 to 2.6 cm) compared with 1.0 cm in patients with false-negative FDG-PET (95% CI, 0.7 to 1.4 cm; P = .001).
Conclusion: FDG-PET is not a sensitive imaging modality for the evaluation of metastatic RCC and may not adequately characterize small metastatic lesions. However, positive FDG-PET is predictive for the presence of RCC in lesions imaged, may complement anatomic radiologic imaging modalities, and may alleviate the need for a biopsy in selected situations. A negative FDG-PET, however does not rule out active malignancy.

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. E. Bahnson, D. A. Murrey Jr, C. M. Mojzisik, N. C. Hall, H. J. Martinez-Suarez, M. V. Knopp, E. W. Martin Jr, S. P. Povoski, and R. R. Bahnson
PET/CT imaging of clear cell renal cell carcinoma with 124I labeled chimeric antibody
Therapeutic Advances in Urology,
June 1, 2009;
1(2):
67 - 70.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. S. Ng, C. G. Wood, P. M. Silverman, N. M. Tannir, P. Tamboli, and C. M. Sandler
Renal Cell Carcinoma: Diagnosis, Staging, and Surveillance
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
October 1, 2008;
191(4):
1220 - 1232.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. J. A. Margolis, J. M. Hoffman, R. J. Herfkens, R. B. Jeffrey, A. Quon, and S. S. Gambhir
Molecular Imaging Techniques in Body Imaging
Radiology,
November 1, 2007;
245(2):
333 - 356.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S.-P. Lin, A. J. Bierhals, and J. S. Lewis Jr
Best Cases from the AFIP: Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
RadioGraphics,
November 1, 2007;
27(6):
1801 - 1807.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Griffin, M. E. Gore, and S. A. Sohaib
Imaging in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
August 1, 2007;
189(2):
360 - 370.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. V. Sahani, S. P. Kalva, A. J. Fischman, R. Kadavigere, M. Blake, P. F. Hahn, and S. Saini
Detection of Liver Metastases from Adenocarcinoma of the Colon and Pancreas: Comparison of Mangafodipir Trisodium-Enhanced Liver MRI and Whole-Body FDG PET
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
July 1, 2005;
185(1):
239 - 246.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|