4.7 Article

Role of FDG PET/CT and Chest CT in the Follow-up of Lung Lesions Treated with Radiofrequency Ablation

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 258, 期 1, 页码 270-276

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10092440

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) combined with computed tomography (PET/CT) and chest CT in the evaluation of the effectiveness of lung radiofrequency (RF) ablation. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approved the study, and all patients gave written informed consent. Thirty-four patients (22 men and 12 women; mean age, 64 years) planned to undergo lung RF ablation were prospectively included and underwent FDG PET/CT and chest CT before (pre-RF ablation PET) and 24 hours, 1 month, and 3 months after RF ablation. Persistent equivocal findings up to 3 months were followed up. Results: Pre-RF ablation PET led to changes in the treatment strategy in nine patients (26%) by depicting unexpected metastases. Two patients without FDG uptake in lesions to be treated were excluded. Overall, 28 patients (46 lesions: five primary cancer, 41 metastases) were treated and followed up. Within 3 months after RF ablation, incomplete treatment was diagnosed in four of 28 patients (14%, three at 1 month and one at 3 months). Findings of FDG PET/CT were true-positive in four, false-positive in one, and true-negative in 23 patients. Findings of chest CT were true-positive in one, false-positive in one, false-negative in three, and true-negative in 23 patients. Inflammatory FDG uptake in mediastinal lymph nodes and at the needle path puncture site used for RF ablation was observed in 15%, 21%, and 15% of patients and in 19%, 11%, and 15% of patients at 24 hours, 1 month, and 3 months, respectively. Conclusion: FDG PET/CT can be used for the evaluation of the effectiveness of lung RF ablation. Inflammatory FDG uptake in mediastinal lymph nodes or at the needle path site used for RF ablation may occur. (C) RSNA, 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据