Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Diagnosis of deep septic thrombophlebitis in cancer patients by fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning: a preliminary report.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Miceli Marisa, Atoui Rola, Walker Ronald, Mahfouz Tahsine, Mirza Nadeem, Diaz Jose, Tricot Guido, Barlogie Bart, Anaissie Elias
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the role of the fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan in the diagnosis and management of deep septic thrombophlebitis (STP).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational evaluation of FDG-PET in patients with cancer and suspected STP. Retrospective evaluation of patients with cancer and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) who underwent FDG-PET and extremity duplex scan (DS) was also performed.
RESULTS: Strong venous uptake was observed in FDG-PET of nine STP episodes versus 0 of 27 DVT episodes (P <.001). FDG-PET identified central vein STP in five patients, whereas DS and venography were negative in five and two of these patients, respectively. FDG-PET diagnosis of STP resulted in therapeutic changes in all patients. In four patients, follow-up FDG-PET confirmed resolution.
CONCLUSION: In cancer patients, FDG-PET identifies STP even in areas not optimally visualized by DS or venography, distinguishes STP from DVT, and leads to significant therapeutic changes.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational evaluation of FDG-PET in patients with cancer and suspected STP. Retrospective evaluation of patients with cancer and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) who underwent FDG-PET and extremity duplex scan (DS) was also performed.
RESULTS: Strong venous uptake was observed in FDG-PET of nine STP episodes versus 0 of 27 DVT episodes (P <.001). FDG-PET identified central vein STP in five patients, whereas DS and venography were negative in five and two of these patients, respectively. FDG-PET diagnosis of STP resulted in therapeutic changes in all patients. In four patients, follow-up FDG-PET confirmed resolution.
CONCLUSION: In cancer patients, FDG-PET identifies STP even in areas not optimally visualized by DS or venography, distinguishes STP from DVT, and leads to significant therapeutic changes.