Comparing diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT, contrast enhanced CT and combined imaging in patients with suspected vascular graft infections

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 1359-1368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars Husmann ◽  
◽  
Martin W. Huellner ◽  
Bruno Ledergerber ◽  
Alexia Anagnostopoulos ◽  
...  
Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1198
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Le Goubey ◽  
Charline Lasnon ◽  
Ines Nakouri ◽  
Laure Césaire ◽  
Michel de Pontville ◽  
...  

Aim: To perform a comprehensive analysis of discordances between contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the evaluation of the extra-cerebral treatment monitoring in patients with stage IV melanoma. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study over a 3-year period in patients referred for 18F-FDG PET/CT and ceCT in the framework of therapy monitoring of immune checkpoint (ICIs) as of January 2017. Imaging reports were analyzed by two physicians in consensus. The anatomical site responsible for discordances, as well as induced changes in treatment were noted. Results: Eighty patients were included and 195 pairs of scans analyzed. Overall, discordances occurred in 65 cases (33%). Eighty percent of the discordances (52/65) were due to 18F-FDG PET/CT scans upstaging the patient. Amongst these discordances, 17/52 (33%) led to change in patient’s management, the most frequent being radiotherapy of a progressing site. ceCT represented 13/65 (20%) of discordances and induced changes in patients’ management in 2/13 cases (15%). The most frequent anatomical site involved was subcutaneous for 18F-FDG PET/CT findings and lung or liver for ceCT. Conclusions: Treatment monitoring with 18F-FDG PET/CT is more efficient than ceCT and has a greater impact in patient’s management.


2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 472-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin E.G.W. ter Voert ◽  
Hanneke W.M. van Laarhoven ◽  
Peter J.M. Kok ◽  
Wim J.G. Oyen ◽  
Eric P. Visser ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 157 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua K. Cho ◽  
Thomas J. Ow ◽  
Andrew Y. Lee ◽  
Richard V. Smith ◽  
Nicolas F. Schlecht ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Guang-Yu Li ◽  
Ju-Lu Hong ◽  
Si-Yun Wang ◽  
Zhi Xie ◽  
En-Tao Liu ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. e149-e156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marn Joon Park ◽  
Jungsu S. Oh ◽  
Jong-Lyel Roh ◽  
Jae Seung Kim ◽  
Jeong Hyun Lee ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 453-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renaud Guignard ◽  
Marija Simukoniene ◽  
Valentina Garibotto ◽  
Osman Ratib

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 595-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Si-yun Wang ◽  
Shu-Xia Wang ◽  
Ji-qin Liao ◽  
Gang Chen

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1007
Author(s):  
Domenico Albano ◽  
Giuseppe Micci ◽  
Caterina Patti ◽  
Federico Midiri ◽  
Silvia Albano ◽  
...  

Imaging of lymphoma is based on the use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) and/or contrast-enhanced CT, but concerns have been raised regarding radiation exposure related to imaging scans in patients with cancer, and its association with increased risk of secondary tumors in patients with lymphoma has been established. To date, lymphoproliferative disorders are among the most common indications to perform whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Whole-body MRI is superior to contrast-enhanced CT for staging the disease, also being less dependent on histology if compared to 18F-FDG-PET/CT. As well, it does not require exposure to ionizing radiation and could be used for the surveillance of lymphoma. The current role of whole-body MRI in the diagnostic workup in lymphoma is examined in the present review along with the diagnostic performance in staging, response assessment and surveillance of different lymphoma subtypes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document