Skip to main content
Log in

Accuracy of whole-body FDG-PET/CT for detecting brain metastases from non-central nervous system tumors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Positron emission tomography (PET) using 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) has a limitation in detecting cerebral metastases; however, the feasibility of detection by inline PET/computed tomography (CT) system remains unknown. We evaluated the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT of body imaging protocol for the detection of cerebral metastases when compared with PET alone and CT alone.

Methods

Fifty patients underwent whole-body FDG-PET/CT scanning including the brain and contrastenhanced brain MR (magnetic resonance) scan. PET-only, CT-only, and the fused images were interpreted, and the confidence of presence of cerebral metastases was recorded using a five-point grading scale. Area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) was calculated. Differences among the three modalities were tested with the Cochran-Q test, followed by multiple comparisons using the McNemar test with Bonferroni adjustment.

Results

Magnetic resonance imaging revealed 70 cerebral metastatic lesions in 20 patients. Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and Az of PET-alone interpretation were 45%, 80%, 66%, and 0.6025, respectively, those of CT-alone interpretation were 50%, 97%, 78%, and 0.7158, respectively, and those of fused-image interpretation were 50%, 93%, 76%, and 0.7242, respectively. ROC analysis revealed significant differences among the three interpretation methods (P = 0.0238) and between PET and PET/CT (P = 0.0129). The sensitivity of PET, CT, and fused-image interpretation for detecting 70 lesions was 13%, 20%, and 20%, respectively.

Conclusions

Even with an integrated PET/CT scanner of body imaging protocol, the sensitivity of cerebral metastases remained unsatisfactory. To assess intracranial lesions, MR scanning should still be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim YS, Kondzielka D, Flicklligar JC, Lunsford LD. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with non-small cell lung cancer metastatic to the brain. Cancer 1997;80:2075–2083.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Young RF. Radiosurgery for the treatment of brain metastases. Semi Surg Oncol 1998;14:70–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Soffietti R, Cornu P, Delattre JY, Grant R, Graus F, Grisold W, et al. EFNS guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases: report of an EFNS Task Force. Eur J Neurol 2006;13:674–681.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Griffeth LK, Rich KM, Dehdashti F, Simpson JR, Fusselman MJ, McGuire AH, et al. Brain metastases from non-central nervous system tumors: evaluation with PET. Radiology 1993;186:37–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Larcos G, Maisey MN. FDG-PET screening for cerebral metastases in patients with suspected malignancy. Nucl Med Commun 1996;17:197–198.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Marom EM, McAdams HP, Erasmus JJ, Goodman PC, Culhane DK, Coleman RE, et al. Staging non-small cell lung cancer with whole-body PET. Radiology 1999;212:803–809.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rohren EM, Provenzale JM, Barboriak DP, Coleman RE. Screening for cerebral metastases with FDG PET in patients undergoing whole-body staging of non-central nervous system malignancy. Radiology 2003;226:181–187.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cleves M. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Stata Tech Bull 1999;52:19–33 [reprinted in Stata Tech Bull Reprints, vol. 9, p. 212–29].

    Google Scholar 

  9. Delong ER, Delong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–845.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dwyer AJ. Matchmaking and McNemar in the comparison of diagnostic modalities. Radiology 1991;178:328–330.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sze G, Milano E, Johnson C, Heier L. Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT. Am J Neuroradiol 1990;11:785–791.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Butler AR, Kricheff II. Non-contrast CT scanning: limited value in suspected brain tumor. Radiology 1978;126:689–693.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis JM, Davis KR, Newhouse J, Pfister RC. Expanded high iodine dose in computed cranial tomography: a preliminary report. Radiology 1979;131:373–380.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schoder H, Yeung HWD, Gonen M, Kraus D, Larson SM. Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 2004;231:65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazuhiro Kitajima.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kitajima, K., Nakamoto, Y., Okizuka, H. et al. Accuracy of whole-body FDG-PET/CT for detecting brain metastases from non-central nervous system tumors. Ann Nucl Med 22, 595–602 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-008-0145-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-008-0145-0

Keywords

Navigation