Increased 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Uptake in Benign, Nonphysiologic Lesions Found on Whole-Body Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT): Accumulated Data From Four Years of Experience With PET/CT
- Study type
- Review article
- Design
- Review article with a systematic review of PET/CT reports and tabulation of a single centre's experience
- Sample size
- 12,000 whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT studies over 4 years
- Source
- Seminars in Nuclear Medicine · 2007
In plain words
A PET/CT scan using a sugar-like substance (FDG) does not show only cancer cells; many kinds of inflammation, injuries and non-cancerous (benign) tumours can also light up. In this study, such benign uptake was seen in more than a quarter of the scans of cancer patients, and it was sometimes as bright as cancer. So a bright spot on a scan does not always mean cancer, and the doctor interprets it together with the CT image. This sometimes avoids extra tests or biopsies.
Key results
Study population
Cancer patients who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT. In the systematic review part, PET/CT reports of oncology patients over a 6-month period were reviewed. Further details of inclusion criteria are not given in the abstract.
Endpoints
Frequency and intensity of non-physiological 18F-FDG uptake in benign lesions, the nature of these lesions, and the role of PET/CT in distinguishing benign from malignant uptake. A formal primary or secondary endpoint is not defined in the abstract.
Safety and side effects
This is a review article and reports no safety outcome. Its important clinical consequence is the risk of false-positive interpretation due to 18F-FDG uptake in benign lesions.
Clinical significance and place in guidelines
This review shows that PET/CT in cancer patients should be interpreted with awareness of avid benign lesions to avoid false-positive results. According to the abstract, correlation with CT in PET/CT can obviate further evaluation or biopsy in more than one third of equivocal lesions. This article is not a clinical guideline, and its status in treatment guidelines should be checked separately.
Limitations
This is a narrative review based on a single centre's experience and has no control group. The abstract does not report methodological details, inclusion criteria or cancer types. The data in the abstract relate to studies performed up to about 2007.
This summary was prepared by the editorial team from the published paper; the original paper is the final reference. Read the original abstract on PubMed.