medigraphic.com

2006, Número 4

<< Anterior

Cir Cir 2006; 74 (4)


La tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET/CT). Utilidad en oncología

Martínez-Villaseñor D, Gerson-Cwilich R

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 38
Paginas: 295-304
Archivo PDF: 184.26 Kb.


RESUMEN

En oncología es necesario el diagnóstico y estadificación precisos del paciente con cáncer, para tener resultados óptimos en su tratamiento. La tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET) tiene alto valor predictivo negativo mediante la exploración del cuerpo entero. Diagnostica la benignidad o malignidad de una neoplasia detectada por otros métodos de imagen; establece el diagnóstico de extensión previo al planteamiento terapéutico de un cáncer conocido; identifica tumor residual y cambios producidos poscirugía, quimio o radioterapia; localiza recidivas tumorales sospechosas clínicamente o por elevación de marcadores tumorales; permite hacer un nuevo estudio de extensión o reestadificación tras el diagnóstico de una recurrencia; permite valorar tempranamente la respuesta a un esquema terapéutico y la búsqueda del tumor primario en pacientes con metástasis de origen desconocido. PET conduce a una imagenología molecular funcional del cáncer en el cuerpo entero.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Gerson R, Serrano A, Villalobos A, Martínez-Villaseñor D. Tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET) en pacientes con cáncer: primer estudio descriptivo mexicano. An Med Asoc Hosp ABC 2004;49:58-65.

  2. Kerik N, Alexanderson RE, Fermon SS, Ruiz-Ramírez L, Alonso-López F. Utilidad de la tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET) en el cáncer pulmonar. Gac Med Mex 2004;140:525-529.

  3. Serna JA, Luviano C, Martínez-Villaseñor D. El PET en la práctica clínica oncológica. XXXIX Reunión Anual de la Sociedad Mexicana de Medicina Nuclear, 2005, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, México.

  4. Kostakoglu L, Agress H, Goldsmith SJ. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. Radiographics 2003;23:315-340.

  5. Kubota R, Yamada S, Kubota K, et al. Intratumoral distribution of F18-fluorodeoxyglucose in vivo: high accumulation in macrophages and granulation tissues studied by micro-autoradiography. J Nucl Med 1992;33:1972-1980.

  6. Phelps ME. PET: the merging of biology and imaging into molecular imaging. J Nucl Med 2000:41:661-681.

  7. Cohade C, Osman M, Pannu HK, Wahl RL. Uptake in supraclavicular area fat (“USA-Fat”): description on 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:170-176.

  8. Valdés-Olmos RA, Balm AJM, Koops W, Loftus BM, Hoefnagel CA, Hilgers FJ. La medicina nuclear en el diagnóstico por la imagen del cáncer de cabeza y cuello. Rev Esp Med Nucl 1997;16:128-137.

  9. McGuirt WF, Greven K, Williams D, et al. PET scanning in head and neck oncology: a review. Head Neck 1998;20:208-215.

  10. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. PET in the assessment of therapy response in patients with carcinoma of the head and neck and of the esophagus. J Nucl Med 2004;45:56-68.

  11. Lowe VJ, Dunphy FR, Varvares M, et al. Evaluation of chemotherapy response in patients with advanced head and neck cancer using [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Head Neck 1997;19:666-674.

  12. Laubenbacher C, Saumweber D, Wagner-Manslau C, Kau RJ, Herz M, Avril N, et al. Comparison of 18fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, MRI and endoscopy for staging head and neck squamous-cell carcinomas. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1747.

  13. Pieterman R, van Putten J, Meuzelaar J, et al. Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron emission tomography. N Engl J Med 2000;343:254-261.

  14. Dwamena B, Sonnad S, Angobaldo J, Wahl R. Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: mediastinal staging in the 1990s—meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT. Radiology 1999;213:530–536.

  15. Lowe V, Duhaylongsod F, Patz E, et al. Pulmonary abnormalities and PET data analysis: a retrospective study. Radiology 1997;202: 435-439.

  16. Wahl RL, Quint L, Greenough R, et al. Staging of mediastinal non-small cell lung cancer with FDG-PET, CT, and fusion images: preliminary prospective evaluation. Radiology 1994;191:371–377.

  17. Vansteenkiste J, Stroobants S, De Leyn P, et al. Lymph node staging in non small-cell lung cancer with FDG-PET scan: a prospective study on 690 lymph node stations from 68 patients. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2142-2149.

  18. Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Available at http://www.komen.org/.

  19. Delbeke D. Oncological applications of FDG PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1706-1715.

  20. Avril N, Schelling M, Dose J, et al. Utility of PET in breast cancer. Clin Positron Imaging 1999;2:261-271.

  21. Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission Tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3495-3502.

  22. Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA. PET in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1998;4:290-302.

  23. Schwartz JD et al. Early prediction of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer using sequential 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1144-1150

  24. Lobrano ME, Berg WA, Narayanan D, Weinberg IN, et al. High resolution positron emission mammography (PEM) is highly accurate in depicting DCIS. Abstract #99, Soc Nucl Med 52nd Annual Meeting, Toronto;June 2005.

  25. Mortimer JE, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Trinkaus K, Katzenellenbogen JA, Welch MJ. Metabolic flare: indicator of hormone responsiveness in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2797-2803.

  26. Muller JM, Erasmi H, Stelzner M, Zieren U, Pichlmaier H. Surgical therapy of oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1990;77:845–857.

  27. Townsend DW, et al. Evaluation of distant metastases in esophageal cancer: 100 consecutive positron emission tomography scans. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;68:1133-1136.

  28. Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J, et al. Prognostic significance of positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients treated for malignant lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin 2001;40:23-30.

  29. Barrington SF, O’Doherty MJ. Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:S117-S127.

  30. Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Zoe H, Goldsmith SJ. Positron emission tomography predicts prognosis after one cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med 2002;43:1018-1027.

  31. Schoder H, et al. PET scan differentiates indolent from aggressive NHL. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4643-4651, 4577-4580.

  32. Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood 1998;91:4464-4471.

  33. Tyler DS, Onaitis M, Kherani A, et al. Positron emission tomography scanning in malignant melanoma. Cancer 2000;89:1019-1025.

  34. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, Schwimmer J, Czernin J, Phelps ME, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorrectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1177-1189.

  35. Valk PE, Abella-Columna E, Haseman MK, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Myers RW, et al. Whole-body PET imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxy-glucose in management of recurrent colorrectal cancer. Arch Surg 1999;134:503-511.

  36. Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E, Dupont P, Bormans G, De Vadder N, et al. Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorrectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:894-901.

  37. Schiepers CF, Penninckx F, De Vadder N, et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorrectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:517–522.

  38. Delbeke D, Vitola JV, Sandler MP, Arildsen RC, Powers TA, Wright JK Jr, et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorrectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1196-1201.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com