scholarly journals Follow-Up 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Contrast-Enhanced CT after Ablation of Liver Metastases of Colorectal Carcinoma—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2432
Author(s):  
Moritz L. Schnitzer ◽  
Matthias F. Froelich ◽  
Felix G. Gassert ◽  
Thomas Huber ◽  
Eva Gresser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Percutaneous Ablation ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct

Purpose: After a percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), follow-up investigations to evaluate potential tumor recurrence are necessary. The aim of this study was to analyze whether a combined 18F-Fluordesoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) scan is cost-effective compared to a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) scan for detecting local tumor progression. Materials and Methods: A decision model based on Markov simulations that estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was developed. Model input parameters were obtained from the recent literature. Deterministic sensitivity analysis of diagnostic parameters based on a Monte-Carlo simulation with 30,000 iterations was performed. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was set to $100,000/QALY. Results: In the base-case scenario, CE-CT resulted in total costs of $28,625.08 and an efficacy of 0.755 QALYs, whereas 18F-FDG PET/CT resulted in total costs of $29,239.97 with an efficacy of 0.767. Therefore, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 18F-FDG PET/CT was $50,338.96 per QALY indicating cost-effectiveness based on the WTP threshold set above. The results were stable in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Based on our model, 18F-FDG PET/CT can be considered as a cost-effective imaging alternative for follow-up investigations after percutaneous ablation of colorectal liver metastases.

Restaging of patients with lymphoma

2008 ◽  
Vol 47 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Pfluger ◽  
V. Schneider ◽  
M. Hacker ◽  
N. Bröckel ◽  
D. Morhard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Non Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct

SummaryAim: Assessment of the clinical benefit of i.v. contrast enhanced diagnostic CT (CE-CT) compared to low dose CT with 20 mAs (LD-CT) without contrast medium in combined [18F]-FDG PET/CT examinations in restaging of patients with lymphoma. Patients, methods: 45 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 35) and Hodgkin's disease (n = 10) were included into this study. PET, LD-CT and CECT were analyzed separately as well as side-by-side. Lymphoma involvement was evaluated separately for seven regions. Indeterminate diagnoses were accepted whenever there was a discrepancy between PET and CT findings. Results for combined reading were calculated by rating indeterminate diagnoses according the suggestions of either CT or PET. Each patient had a clinical follow-up evaluation for >6 months. Results: Region-based evaluation suggested a sensitivity/specificity of 66/93% for LD-CT, 87%/91% for CE-CT, 95%/96% for PET, 94%/99% for PET/LD-CT and 96%/99% for PET/CE-CT. The data for PET/CT were obtained by rating indeterminate results according to the suggestions of PET, which turned out to be superior to CT. Lymphoma staging was changed in two patients using PET/ CE-CT as compared to PET/LD-CT. Conclusion: Overall, there was no significant difference between PET/LD-CT and PET/CE-CT. However, PET/CE-CT yielded a more precise lesion delineation than PET/LD-CT. This was due to the improved image quality of CE-CT and might lead to a more accurate investigation of lymphoma.

scholarly journals 18F-FDG PET/CT versus Diagnostic Contrast-Enhanced CT for Follow-Up of Stage IV Melanoma Patients Treated by Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Frequency and Management of Discordances over a 3-Year Period in a University Hospital

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1198
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Le Goubey ◽  
Charline Lasnon ◽  
Ines Nakouri ◽  
Laure Césaire ◽  
Michel de Pontville ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Anatomical Site ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Enhanced Ct ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct ◽  
Induced Changes

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.

Comparison of liver SUV using unenhanced CT versus contrast-enhanced CT for attenuation correction in 18F-FDG PET/CT

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Attenuation Correction ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Unenhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ct ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Enhanced Ct ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct

15 ORAL Does 18F-FDG PET/CT alter the management of patients with colorectal liver metastases?

2006 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S6
Author(s):  
F. Pakzad ◽  
A. Engledow ◽  
S. Rogers ◽  
J.B. Bomanji ◽  
P.J. Ell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Colorectal Liver Metastases ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct

scholarly journals Comparison of F18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Markers of Graft Viability in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siva Srivastava Garika ◽  
Anshul Sharma ◽  
Abdul Razik ◽  
Akshima Sharma ◽  
Ravindra Mohan Pandey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Graft ◽  
Positron Emission ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct ◽  
Ct And Mri

Background: F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F18-FDG PET/CT) can be used to assess changes in the metabolism of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft as it is undergoing “ligamentization.” Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is the preferred modality for noninvasive assessment of graft structure and graft vascularity. Purpose: To compare the use of F18-FDG PET/CT and DCE-MRI to assess ligamentization within the ACL graft and correlate the results with clinical tests. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Among 30 recruited patients, 27 patients (3 females and 24 males) completed 2 follow-up assessments at a mean of 125 ± 22 days and 259 ± 38 days after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. At both assessments, anterior drawer test, Lachman test, and Lysholm scoring (LS) were conducted. Images from F18-FDG PET/CT and MRI were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively (maximum standardized uptake value [SUVmax], SUVmax ratio to the contralateral side [SUVmax CL], normalized enhancement [NE]) in 3 zones: femoral, intra-articular (IA), and tibial. Of the 27 recruited patients, 1 patient had reinjury due to a fall. Therefore, 26 patients were considered for the final analysis. Results: A significant improvement ( P = .0001) was found in median LS, from 78.5 (range, 62-90) to 94.5 (range, 84-100), at the second follow-up. All grafts were found to be viable on PET/CT and vascularized on MRI. All grafts were seen as continuous on MRI, with exception of 1 graft at the second follow-up. Dynamic MRI identified single-vessel supply to all of the grafts at the first follow-up and multiple-vessel supply in 10 patients at the second follow-up. Reduction in the median SUVmax, SUVmax CL, and NE at second follow-up was seen in all 3 zones. Only SUVmax CL in the IA zone showed a significant reduction ( P = .032); patients with excellent LS at the second follow-up showed significantly higher reduction ( P = .005) than patients with good LS. NE in the IA zone was correlated (0.39; P = .048) with LS only at the first follow-up, whereas SUVmax CL (–0.52; P = .006) and SUVmax (–0.49, P = .010) in the IA zone negatively correlated with LS at the second follow-up only. No correlation was observed between PET/CT and MRI parameters. Conclusion: Glucose metabolism and vascularity in the graft tissue can be used to assess ligamentization of ACL graft. A viable and vascularized graft at first follow-up is associated with good to excellent final outcome, regardless of LS at this stage. Since no correlation was observed between PET/CT and MRI parameters, they may be assessing different domains of the same process. Higher NE in the IA zone at the first follow-up and lower SUVmax CL in the same region at second follow-up are associated with better outcome.

FRI0262 The Role of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Large Vessel Vasculitis

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 519.2-519
Author(s):  
G. Pazzola ◽  
M. Casali ◽  
F. Muratore ◽  
N. Pipitone ◽  
L. Boiardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Large Vessel Vasculitis ◽  
Large Vessel ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
18F Fdg ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document