Search

Molecular imaging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MBC) is restricted to its locoregional and distant metastases, since most radiopharmaceuticals have a urinary excretion that limits the visualization of the primary tumor. 64 CuCl 2 , a positron-emitting radiotracer with nearly exclusive biliary elimination, could be well suited to exploring urinary tract neoplasms. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility of 64 CuCl 2 -based staging of patients with MBC; furthermore, we compared the diagnostic capability of this method with those of the current gold standards, that is, contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and 18 F-FDG PET/CT. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients referred to our institution for pathology-confirmed MBC staging/restaging between September 2021 and January 2023. All patients underwent ceCT, 18 F-FDG, and 64 CuCl 2 PET/CT within 2 wk. Patient-based analysis and lesion-based analysis were performed for all of the potentially affected districts (overall, bladder wall, lymph nodes, skeleton, liver, lung, and pelvic soft tissue). Results: Forty-two patients (9 women) were enrolled. Thirty-six (86%) had evidence of disease, with a total of 353 disease sites. On patient-based analysis, ceCT and 64 CuCl 2 PET/CT showed higher sensitivity than 18 F-FDG PET/CT in detecting the primary tumor ( P < 0.001); moreover, 64 CuCl 2 PET/CT was slightly more sensitive than 18 F-FDG PET/CT in disclosing soft-tissue lesions ( P < 0.05). Both PET methods were more specific and accurate than ceCT in classifying nodal lesions ( P < 0.05). On lesion-based analysis, 64 CuCl 2 PET/CT outperformed 18 F-FDG PET/CT and ceCT in detecting disease localizations overall ( P < 0.001), in the lymph nodes ( P < 0.01), in the skeleton ( P < 0.001), and in the soft tissue ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: 64 CuCl 2 PET/CT appears to be a sensitive modality for staging/restaging of MBC and might represent a "one-stop shop" diagnostic method in these scenarios., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Background and Objectives : 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/X-ray computed tomography (PET/CT) represents the mainstay diagnostic procedure for suspected ovarian cancer (OC) recurrence. PET/CT can be integrated with contrast medium and in various diagnostic settings; however, the effective benefit of this procedure is still debated. We aimed to compare the diagnostic capabilities of low-dose and contrast-enhanced PET/CT (PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT) in patients with suspected ovarian cancer relapse. Materials and Methods : 122 OC patients underwent both PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT. Two groups of nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists scored the findings as positive or negative. Clinical/radiological follow-up was used as ground truth. Sensitivity, specificity, negative/positive predictive value, and accuracy were calculated at the patient and the lesion level. Results : A total of 455 and 474 lesions were identified at PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT, respectively. At the lesion level, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were not significantly different between PET/ldCT and PET/ceCT (98%, 93.3%, 97.4%, 94.9%, and 96.9% for PET/ldCT; 99%, 95.5%, 98.3%, 97%, and 98% for PET/ceCT, p = ns). At the patient level, no significant differences in these parameters were identified (e.g., p = 0.22 and p = 0.35 for accuracy, in the peritoneum and lymph nodes, respectively). Smaller peritoneal/lymph node lesions close to physiological FDG uptake sources were found in the cases of misidentification by PET/ldCT. PET/ceCT prompted a change in clinical management in four cases (3.2%) compared to PET/ldCT. Conclusions : PET/ceCT does not perform better than PET/ldCT but can occasionally clarify doubtful peritoneal findings on PET/ldCT. To avoid unnecessary dose to the patient, PET/ceCT should be excluded in selected cases.

Aim: To compare 2-deoxy-2-((18)F)fluoro-D-glucose((18)F-FDG) and (18)F-sodium ((18)F-NaF) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) accuracy in breast cancer patients with clinically/radiologically suspected or known bone metastases., Methods: A total of 45 consecutive patients with breast cancer and the presence or clinical/biochemical or radiological suspicion of bone metastatic disease underwent (18)F-FDG and (18)F-fluoride PET/CT. Imaging results were compared with histopathology when available, or clinical and radiological follow-up of at least 1 year. For each technique we calculated: Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), overall accuracy, positive and negative predictive values, error rate, and Youden's index. McNemar's χ(2) test was used to test the difference in sensitivity and specificity between the two diagnostic methods. All analyses were computed on a patient basis, and then on a lesion basis, with consideration ofthe density of independent lesions on the co-registered CT (sclerotic, lytic, mixed, no-lesions) and the divergent site of disease (skull, spine, ribs, extremities, pelvis). The impact of adding (18)F-NaF PET/CT to the work-up of patients was also measured in terms of change in their management due to (18)F-NaF PET/CT findings., Results: The two imaging methods of (18)F-FDG and (18)F-fluoride PET/CT were significantly different at the patient-based analysis: Accuracy was 86.7% and 84.4%, respectively (McNemar's χ(2) = 6.23, df = 1, P = 0.01). Overall, 244 bone lesions were detected in our analysis. The overall accuracy of the two methods was significantly different at lesion-based analysis (McNemar's χ(2) = 93.4, df = 1, P < 0.0001). In the lesion density-based and site-based analysis, (18)F-FDG PET/CT provided more accurate results in the detection of CT-negative metastasis (P < 0.002) and vertebral localizations (P < 0.002); (18)F-NaF PET/CT was more accurate in detecting sclerotic (P < 0.005) and rib lesions (P < 0.04). (18)F-NaF PET/CT led to a change of management in 3 of the 45 patients (6.6%) by revealing findings that were not detected at (18)F-FDG PET/CT., Conclusion: (18)F-FDG PET/CT is a reliable imaging tool in the detection of bone metastasis in most cases, with a diagnostic accuracy that is slightly, but significantly, superior to that of (18)F-NaF PET/CT in the general population of breast cancer patients. However, the extremely high sensitivity of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT can exploit its diagnostic potential in specific clinical settings (i.e., small CT-evident sclerotic lesions, high clinical suspicious of relapse, and negative (18)F-FDG PET and conventional imaging).