Clinical nuclear medicine · 2017
Multicenter Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced FDG PET/CT and 64-Slice Multi-Detector-Row CT for Initial Staging and Response Evaluation at the End of Treatment in Patients With Lymphoma.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gómez León Nieves, Delgado-Bolton Roberto C, Del Campo Del Val Lourdes, Cabezas Beatriz, Arranz Reyes, García Marta, Cannata Jimena, González Ortega Saturnino, Pérez Sáez Mª Ángeles, López-Botet Begoña, Rodríguez-Vigil Beatriz, Mateo Marta, Colletti Patrick M, Rubello Domenico, Carreras José L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare staging correctness between contrast-enhanced FDG PET/ceCT and 64-slice multi-detector-row CT (ceCT64) for initial staging and response evaluation at the end of treatment (EOT) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma.
METHODS: This prospective study compared initial staging and response evaluation at EOT. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomly assigned to either ceCT64 or FDG PET/ceCT. A nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist read FDG PET/ceCT scans independently and achieved post hoc consensus, whereas another independent radiologist interpreted ceCT64 separately. The reference standard included all clinical information, all tests, and follow-up. Ethics committees of the participating centers approved the study, and all participants provided written consent.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were randomized to ceCT64 and 90 to FDG PET/ceCT; 72 had Hodgkin lymphoma, 72 had DLBCL, and 37 had follicular lymphoma. There was excellent correlation between the reference standard and initial staging for both FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84), although evaluation of the response at EOT was excellent only for FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated satisfactory agreement between FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84) in initial staging compared with the reference standard (P = 0.16). Response evaluation at EOT with FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91) was superior compared with ceCT64 (κ = 0.307) (P < 0.001).
METHODS: This prospective study compared initial staging and response evaluation at EOT. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomly assigned to either ceCT64 or FDG PET/ceCT. A nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist read FDG PET/ceCT scans independently and achieved post hoc consensus, whereas another independent radiologist interpreted ceCT64 separately. The reference standard included all clinical information, all tests, and follow-up. Ethics committees of the participating centers approved the study, and all participants provided written consent.
RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were randomized to ceCT64 and 90 to FDG PET/ceCT; 72 had Hodgkin lymphoma, 72 had DLBCL, and 37 had follicular lymphoma. There was excellent correlation between the reference standard and initial staging for both FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84), although evaluation of the response at EOT was excellent only for FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated satisfactory agreement between FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84) in initial staging compared with the reference standard (P = 0.16). Response evaluation at EOT with FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91) was superior compared with ceCT64 (κ = 0.307) (P < 0.001).