Diagnostic Superiority of Dual-Time Point [18F]FDG PET/CT to Differentiate Malignant from Benign Soft Tissue Tumors
[18F]FDG PET/CT is used in the workup of indeterminate soft tissue tumors (STTs) but lacks accuracy in the detection of malignant STTs. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether dual-time point [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging (DTPI) can be useful in this indication. In this prospective study, [18F]FDG PE...
Saved in:
Published in | Diagnostics (Basel) Vol. 13; no. 20; p. 3202 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Basel
MDPI AG
13.10.2023
MDPI |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | [18F]FDG PET/CT is used in the workup of indeterminate soft tissue tumors (STTs) but lacks accuracy in the detection of malignant STTs. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether dual-time point [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging (DTPI) can be useful in this indication. In this prospective study, [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging was performed 1 h (t1) and 3 h (t2) after injection. Tumor uptake (SUVmax) was calculated at each time point to define a retention index (RI) corresponding to the variation between t1 and t2 (%). Sixty-eight patients were included, representing 20 benign and 48 malignant tumors (including 40 sarcomas). The RI was significantly higher in malignant STTs than in benign STTs (median: +21.8% vs. −2%, p < 0.001). An RI of >14.3% predicted STT malignancy with a specificity (Sp) of 90% and a sensitivity (Se) of 69%. An SUVmaxt1 of >4.5 was less accurate with an Sp of 80% and an Se of 60%. In a subgroup of tumors with at least mild [18F]FDG uptake (SUVmax ≥ 3; n = 46), the RI significantly outperformed the diagnostic accuracy of SUVmax (AUC: 0.88 vs. 0.68, p = 0.01). DTPI identifies malignant STT tumors with high specificity and outperforms the diagnostic accuracy of standard PET/CT. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 2075-4418 2075-4418 |
DOI: | 10.3390/diagnostics13203202 |