medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2004, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2004; 49 (2)

PET scan in cancer patients: First descriptive study in Mexico

Gerson R, Serrano A, Villalobos A, Martínez-Villaseñor D

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 58-65
PDF size: 121.26 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Positron emission tomography allows for the estimation of metabolic alterations in tumor cells which have shown an increase of glycolisis, permitting it to be a functional study for the evaluation of this group of diseases. Objectives: To determine sensibility and specificity of PET of the detection of increase metabolic activity in cancer patients. Patients: From February 1st, 2002 through April 23, 2004: patients over 15 years of age, regardless of gender, with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer, under oncological treatment, with a PET scan performed. Methods: Age, gender, primary site of cancer, clinical stage, oncologic treatments, PET findings, standarized uptake value, diagnostic and therapeutic decisions and glucose serum level were registered Results: 63 PET in 54 patients, 28 female (51.4%) and 26 male (47.2%). Mean age 54.7 ± 13.5 yrs, range 17 to 78. Indication for PET: surveillance, 33 studies (52.3%); evaluation at the end of treatment in 18 (28.6%); staging 9 (14.3%) and differential diagnosis in 3 (4.8%). Fifteen studies were considered normal (23.8%). Mean SUV 4.9 ± 3.4, range 0.4 a 12.8. Follow-up 28/33, therapeutic evaluation 14/18, staging 6/9 and differential diagnosis 0/3. Conclusions: PET is a metabolic study with high capability for detecting potential sites of neoplastic activity, mainly in breast, pulmonary and ovarian cancer. It is useful for evaluating oncologic patients during surveillance, at the end of treatment, staging as well as differential diagnosis. It is useful to establish the decision making for oncologic therapy.


REFERENCES

  1. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/uscs/index.htm

  2. Registro Histopatológico de Neoplasias en México. Dirección General de Epidemiología, Secretaría de Salud. 1998.

  3. http://www.paho.org/Spanish/DD/AIS/cp_484.htm

  4. Lugo TC, Braun S, Cote RJ et al. Detection and measurement of occult disease for the prognosis of solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2003; 2609–2615.

  5. Bomanji JB, Costa DC, Eli PJ. Clinical role of positron emission tomography in oncology. Lancet Oncology 2001; 3: 157-164.

  6. Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y et al. PET scan imaging in oncology. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39: 1525-1534.

  7. Laking GR, Price PM, Sculpher MJ. Assessment of the technology for functional imaging in cancer. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 2194-2199.

  8. Siggelkow W, Zimny M, Faridi A et al. The value of positron emission tomography in the follow-up for breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2003; 1859-1868.

  9. Yen RF, Sun SS, Shen YY et al. Whole body positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose for the detection of recurrent ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res 2001; 21: 3691-3694.

  10. Danforth DN, Aloj L, Carrasquillo JA et al. The role of 18-F-FDG-PET in the local regional evaluation of women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002; 75: 135-146.

  11. Bassa P, Kim EE, Loue T et al. Evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy using PET with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1996; 37: 931-938.

  12. Burcombe RJ, Makris A, Pittam M et al. Evaluation of good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer using 18-F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 375-379.

  13. Jansson T, Westlin JE, Ahlström H et al. Positron emission tomography studies in patients with locally advanced and or metastasic breast cancer: a method for early therapy evaluation. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 140-1477.

  14. Schelling M, Avril N, Nährig J et al. Positron emission tomography using 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose for monitoring primary chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1689-1695.

  15. Choi NC, Fischman AJ, Niemierko A et al. Dose-response relationship between probability pathologic tumor control and glucose metabolic rate measured with FDG PET after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 2002; 54: 1024-1035.

  16. Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: Prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2651-2657.

  17. Salminen E, Mac Manus M. FDG-PET imaging in the management of non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2002; 13: 357-360.

  18. van der Hoeven JJM, Krak NC, Hoestra OS et al. 18F-2-fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose positron emission tomography in staging of locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1253-1259.

  19. Friedberg JW. Chengazi V. PET scans in the staging of lymphoma: current status. Oncologist 2003; 8: 438-447.

  20. Dobos N, Rubesin SE. Radiologic imaging modalities in the diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2002; 16: 875-895.

  21. Maisey NR, Webb A, Flux GD et al. FDG-PET in the prediction of survival of patients with cancer of the pancreas: a pilot study. Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 287-293.

  22. Blasberg R. PET imaging of gene expression. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 2137-2146.

  23. Gupta N, Price PM, Aboagye EO et al. PET for in vivo pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic measurements. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38: 2094-2107.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com