BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
British Journal of Radiology (2004) 77, 1000-1006
© 2004 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/69059431
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Joshi, U
Right arrow Articles by Hoekstra, O S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Joshi, U
Right arrow Articles by Hoekstra, O S

Full Paper

In search of an unknown primary tumour presenting with extracervical metastases: the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET

U Joshi, MD1, J J M van der Hoeven, MD1,3, E F I Comans, MD, PhD1, G J Herder, MD1, G J J Teule, MD, PhD1 and O S Hoekstra, MD, PhD1,2

Departments of 1 Nuclear Medicine and PET Research and 2 Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam and 3 Department of Internal Medicine, Amstelveen Hospital, Amstelveen, The Netherlands

Correspondence: Otto S Hoekstra, Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET Research, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands

A retrospective study was carried out to determine the performance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in patients with unknown primary tumours presenting with metastases external to the neck. All patients referred to an academic PET centre (July, 1997 to December, 2000) presenting with an extracervical metastasis and no prior systemic therapy were eligible. The minimum follow-up period was 11 months. From 63 eligible cases, known metastases were FDG avid in all but one neuroendocrine process. PET scans were retrospectively classified as positive for a primary tumour (n=29), i.e. revealing at least one anatomical site suspected to be the primary tumour. This was confirmed in 16, either by histology (n=10) or radiological and clinical follow-up (n=6). There were four false positive cases. In nine patients, the primary tumour was never confirmed. Of the remaining 33 negative PET scans the primary tumour was clinically not found in 18. Follow-up and additional pathology investigations demonstrated the primary tumour in 15. A survey on clinical usefulness of PET (response rate 83%) suggested that PET positively contributed to diagnostic understanding in 29 of 52 evaluable cases. Applied late in the diagnostic trajectory, approximately four patients need to be scanned by PET in order to find one primary tumour. However, in addition to direct demonstration of unknown primaries, there appears to be a positive effect on the diagnostic work-up of these patients of a similar magnitude.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
H. M. Horlings, R. K. van Laar, J.-M. Kerst, H. H. Helgason, J. Wesseling, J. J.M. van der Hoeven, M. O. Warmoes, A. Floore, A. Witteveen, J. Lahti-Domenici, et al.
Gene Expression Profiling to Identify the Histogenetic Origin of Metastatic Adenocarcinomas of Unknown Primary
J. Clin. Oncol., September 20, 2008; 26(27): 4435 - 4441.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2004 by the British Institute of Radiology.