Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:58:13.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Positron Emmision Tomography in Lung Cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2009

By
Thomas B. Lynch  and
Gary J. R. Cook
Edited by
Sujal R. Desai
Thomas B. Lynch
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK
Gary J. R. Cook
Affiliation:
Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, UK
Sujal R. Desai
Affiliation:
King's College Hospital, London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

PET is a nuclear medicine imaging technique which, following injection of a positron emitting radiopharmaceutical, results in functional tomographic images. PET shares the advantages of nuclear medicine imaging over other radiological techniques including the ability to map function/metabolism before alterations in structure. In addition, some of the disadvantages of conventional nuclear medicine are overcome, in that spatial resolution of images is much improved and tomographic imaging is routine rather than an additional acquisition. Another advantage of PET is that it is relatively easy to measure and correct for the attenuation of photons that leave the body. This means that it is possible to measure radioactive concentrations accurately within tissues and, if necessary, express physiological processes in absolute units. The most widely used and computationally simple method of quantitation in clinical PET is the standardized uptake value (SUV). This is a semiquantitative index that measures the concentration of tracer within a tumour compared to the injected dose and is normalized to body weight. It has the potential to be an index of tracer uptake that can be compared between patients and at different time periods within the same patient and is commonly quoted in clinical PET publications.

PET has advanced in the last 15 years from being primarily a research tool to being an imaging modality with a number of clinical applications.

Type
Chapter
Information
Lung Cancer , pp. 84 - 98
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Warburgh, O. (1954). On the origin of cancer cells. Science, 123, 306–14.Google Scholar
Shon, I. H., O'Doherty, M. J., Maisey, M. N. (2002). Positron emission tomography in lung cancer. Semin Nucl Med, 32, 240–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higashi, K., Ueda, Y., Seki, H., et al. (1998). Fluorine-18-FDG PET imaging is negative in bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med, 39, 1016–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Lowe, V. J., Hoffman, J. M., DeLong, D. M., Patz, E. F., Coleman, R. E. (1994). Semiquantitative and visual analysis of FDG-PET images in pulmonary abnormalities. J Nucl Med, 35, 1771–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Hain, S. F., Curran, K. M., Beggs, A. D., Fogelman, I., O'Doherty, M. J., Maisey, M. N. (2001). FDG-PET as a “metabolic biopsy” tool in thoracic lesions with indeterminate biopsy. Eur J Nucl Med, 28, 1336–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pieterman, R. M., Putten, J. W., Meuzelaar, J. J., Mooyaart, E. L., Vaalburg, W., Koeter, G. H., Fidler, V., Pruim, J., Groen, H. J. (2000). Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med, 343, 254–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinteren, H., Hoekstra, O. S., Smit, E. F., Bergh, J. H., et al. (2002). Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet, 359, 1388–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valk, P. E., Pounds, T. R., Hopkins, D. M., Haseman, M. K., et al. (1995). Staging non-small cell lung cancer by whole body positron emission tomography imaging. Ann Thor Surg, 60, 1573–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erasmus, J. J., Patz, E. F., McAdamas, H. P., Murray, J. G., et al. (1997). Evaluation of adrenal masses in patientys with bronchogenic carcinoma using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Am J Roentgenol, 168, 1357–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bury, T., Barreto, A., Daenen, F., Barthelemy, N., et al. (1998). Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med, 25, 1244–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lardinois, D., Weder, W., Hany, T. F., Kamel, E. M., et al. (2003). Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med, 348, 2500–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhital, K., Saunders, C. A., Seed, P. T., O'Doherty, M. J., Dussek, J. (2000). 18FDG PET and its prognostic value in lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 18, 425–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekstra, C. J., Stroobants, S. G., Smit, E. F., Vansteenkiste, J., et al. (2005). Prognostic relevance of response evaluation using 18F -2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol, 23, 8362–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebert, M. E., Lowe, V. J., Hoffman, J. M., Patz, E. F., Anscher, M. S. (1996). Positron emission tomography in the pretreatment evaluation and follow-up of non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy: preliminary findings. Am J Clin Oncol, 19, 416–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, R. J., Mac Manus, M. P., Matthews, J. P., Hogg, A., et al. (2004). Early FDG-PET imaging after radical radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: inflammatory changes in normal tissues correlate with tumor response and do not confound therapeutic response evaluation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 60, 412–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Manus, M. P., Hicks, R. J., Matthews, J. P., Wirth, A., et al. (2005). Metabolic (FDG-PET) response after radical radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer correlates with patterns of failure. Lung Cancer, 49, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanuytsel, L. J., Vansteenkiste, J. F., Stroobants, S. G., Leyn, P. R., et al. (2000). The impact of (18)F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) lymph node staging on the radiation treatment volumes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol, 55, 317–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patz, E. F., Lowe, V. J., Hoffman, J. M., Paine, S. S., et al. (1994). Persistent or recurrent bronchogenic carcinoma: detection with PET and 2- F-18 -2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology, 191, 379–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, J. D., Dehdashti, F., Mintun, M. A., Govindan, R., et al. (2004). Positron emission tomography in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol, 22, 3248–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flores, R. M., Akhurst, T., Gonen, M., Larson, S. M., Rusch, V. W. (2003). Positron emission tomography defines metastatic disease but not locoregional disease in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 126, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, G. J., Wegner, E., Fogleman, I. (2004). Pitfalls and Artefacts in 18 FDG PET and PET/CT Oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med, 34, 122–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goerres, G. W., Kamel, E., Seifert, B., et al. (2002). Accuracy of image coregistration of pulmonary lesions in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using an integrated PET/CT system. J Nucl Med, 43, 1469–75.Google ScholarPubMed
Buck, A. K., Hetzel, M., Schirrmeister, H., Halter, G., et al. (2005). Clinical relevance of imaging proliferative activity in lung nodules. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 32, 525–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hara, T., Kosaka, N., Suzuki, T., Kudo, K., Niino, H. (2003). Uptake rates of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 11C-choline in lung cancer and pulmonary tuberculosis: a positron emission tomography study. Chest, 124, 893–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eschmann, S. M., Paulsen, F., Reimold, M., Dittmann, H., et al. (2005). Prognostic impact of hypoxia imaging with 18F-misonidazole PET in non-small cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer before radiotherapy. J Nucl Med, 46, 253–60.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×