Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-08-2006 | Controversies

Is PET/CT necessary in paediatric oncology?

Against

Authors: K. Hahn, T. Pfluger

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Issue 8/2006

Excerpt

Since the first reports on its clinical use [1, 2], PET/CT has become one of the most important imaging tools, particularly in the field of oncology. Combining morphological and functional information in one examination, one image and one report has proven to be advantageous both for clinicians and for nuclear medicine specialists. PET/CT has the following important advantages:

Functional and morphological information can be obtained in a single examination.
Direct and immediate correlation of PET and CT data permits faster and more effective image analysis.
Non-invasive whole-body tumour staging is possible in 30–45 min.
It allows determination of the viability and metabolic activity of a lesion detected by CT.
It permits exact morphological localisation of a metabolically active lesion detected by PET, which is especially relevant in differentiating between pathological and physiological changes.

…

Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, et al. A combined PET-CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1369–79PubMed

von Schulthess GK. Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT–PET system. Eur Radiol 2000;10:S377–80CrossRef

Hudson MM, Krasin MJ, Kaste SC. PET imaging in pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34(3):190–8PubMedCrossRef

Kaste SC. Issues specific to implementing PET-CT for pediatric oncology: what we have learned along the way. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34(3):205–13PubMedCrossRef

Steinert HC. PET/CT in lymphoma patients. Radiologie 2004;44(11):1060–7CrossRef

Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, Hunold A, Heindel W, Franzius C. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG–PET and CT. Nuklearmediziner 2005;44(1):1–7

Nakamoto Y, Tatsumi M, Hammoud D, Cohade C, Osman MM. Normal FDG distribution patterns in the head and neck: PET/CT evaluation. Radiology 2005;234(3):879–85PubMedCrossRef

Franzius C, Riemann B, Vormoor J, Kopka K, Wagner S, Schober O. Metastatic neuroblastoma demonstrated by whole-body PET-CT. Nuklearmediziner 2005;44(1):N4–5

McCarville MB, Christie R, Daw NC, Spunt SL, Kaste SC. PET/CT in the evaluation of childhood sarcomas. AJR 2005;184(4):1293–304PubMed

10.

Moon L, McHugh K. Advances in paediatric tumour imaging. Arch Dis Child 2005;90(6):608–11PubMedCrossRef

11.

Yeung HW, Schoder H, Smith A, Gonen M, Larson SM. Clinical value of combined positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging in the interpretation of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography studies in cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 2005;7(3):229–35PubMedCrossRef

12.

Mody RJ, Pohlen JA, Malde S, Strouse PJ, Shulkin BL. FDG PET for the study of primary hepatic malignancies in children. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2005 Aug 2; [Epub ahead of print]

13.

Figarola MS, McQuiston SA, Wilson F, Powell R. Recurrent hepatoblastoma with localization by PET-CT. Pediatr Radiol 2005;35(12):1254–8PubMedCrossRef

14.

Fahey FH, Palmer MR, Strauss KJ, et al. Dosimetry and image quality associated with low-dose CT-based attenuation correction for pediatric PET. J Nucl Med 2005;46:74P

15.

Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G, Ziegler SI, Muenzing W, Mueller SP, et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual-modality ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 2005;46:608–13PubMed

16.

Brix G, Beyer T. PET/CT dose escalated image fusion? Nucl Med 2005;5a:551–7

17.

Brasch R, Boyd D, Gooding C. Computed tomographic scanning in children: comparison of radiation dose and resolving power of commercial CT scanners. Am J Roentgenol 1978;131:95–101

18.

Fearon T, Vucich J. Pediatric patient exposures from CT examinations: GE CT/T 9800 Scanner. AJR 1985;144:805–9PubMed

19.

Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Preston DL, Vaeth M, Mabuchi K. Studies of the mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 12, part 1. Cancer: 1950–1990. Radiat Res 1996;146:1–27PubMedCrossRef

20.

Brenner DJ. Estimating cancer risks from pediatric CT: going from the qualitative to the quantitative. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:228–31PubMedCrossRef

21.

Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR 2001;176:289–96PubMed

22.

Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004;232:735–8PubMedCrossRef

Title: Is PET/CT necessary in paediatric oncology?
Against
Authors: K. Hahn
T. Pfluger
Publication date: 01-08-2006
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue 8/2006
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-006-0115-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Is PET/CT necessary in paediatric oncology?

Against

Excerpt

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Excerpt

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2006

Quantitation of cardiac sympathetic innervation in rabbits using 11C-hydroxyephedrine PET: relation to 123I-MIBG uptake

Differentiation of tumour and inflammation: characterisation of [methyl-3H]methionine (MET) and O-(2-[18F]fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) uptake in human tumour and inflammatory cells

Comparative assessment of18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET and99mTc-tetrofosmin SPECT for the prediction of functional recovery in patients with reperfused acute myocardial infarction

Will innervation imaging predict ventricular arrhythmias in ischaemic cardiomyopathy?

Routine use of FDG-PET scans in melanoma patients with positive sentinel node biopsy

Simplified quantification of small animal [18F]FDG PET studies using a standard arterial input function