4.6 Article

Tumor Identification of Less Aggressive or Indolent Lymphoma With Whole-Body 11C-Acetate PET/CT

期刊

CLINICAL NUCLEAR MEDICINE
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 276-281

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000002464

关键词

acetate; FDG; indolent lymphoma; PET/CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of whole-body [C-11]acetate PET/CT in less aggressive or indolent lymphomas, wherein [F-18]FDG PET/CT would exhibit limited sensitivity. Methods Between September 2016 and May 2018, we prospectively evaluated 17 patients (9 men, 8 women; mean age [range], 71 [45-87] years) with pathologically proven less aggressive or indolent lymphomas according to Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Classification Project, using both [F-18]FDG PET/CT and [C-11]acetate PET/CT (performed on the same day). Detected nodal lesions were recorded according to the Ann Arbor classification. Extranodal (EN) lesions were also evaluated. We compared whole-body lesion detection between [F-18] FDG PET/CT and [C-11]acetate PET/CT using the McNemar test. Results In all patients, significantly more nodal and EN lesions were detected using [C-11]acetate PET/CT than [F-18]FDG PET/CT (nodal: 84 vs 64 regions; P < 0.001; EN: 26 vs 19 regions, P = 0.039). Bone lesions were detected in 8 and 5 patients using [C-11]acetate PET/CT and [F-18]FDG PET/CT, respectively (P = 0.25). Among the 14 patients (82.4%) who underwent bone marrow biopsy, bone marrow involvement was detected with sensitivities of 100% (6/6 patients) and 80% (5/6 patients) using [C-11]acetate PET/CT and [F-18]FDG PET/CT, respectively. Multiple areas of focal uptake in the spleen of 1 patient were exhibited on [F-18]FDG PET/CT but not [C-11]acetate PET/CT. Conclusions [C-11]acetate PET/CT exhibited greater sensitivity than [F-18]FDG PET/CT for lesion detection in patients with less aggressive or indolent lymphomas, thus promising applicability as a physiological tracer in the study of such lesions.

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

4.6
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