Blog
About

3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      2-18fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for postchemotherapy seminoma residual lesions: a retrospective validation of the SEMPET trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          2-¹⁸fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has been recommended in international guidelines in the evaluation of postchemotherapy seminoma residuals. Our trial was designed to validate these recommendations in a larger group of patients. FDG-PET studies in patients with metastatic seminoma and residual masses after platinum-containing chemotherapy were correlated with either the histology of the resected lesion(s) or the clinical outcome. One hundred and seventy seven FDG-PET results were contributed. Of 127 eligible PET studies, 69% were true negative, 11% true positive, 6% false negative, and 15% false positive. We compared PET scans carried out before and after a cut-off level of 6 weeks after the end of the last chemotherapy cycle. PET sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value were 50%, 77%, 91%, and 25%, respectively, before the cut-off and 82%, 90%, 95%, and 69% after the cut-off. PET accuracy significantly improved from 73% before to 88% after the cut-off (P=0.032). Our study confirms the high specificity, sensitivity, and NPV of FDG-PET for evaluating postchemotherapy seminoma residuals. When carried out at an adequate time point, FDG-PET remains a valuable tool for clinical decision-making in this clinical setting and spares patients unnecessary therapy.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Annals of Oncology
          Annals of Oncology
          Oxford University Press (OUP)
          09237534
          January 2012
          January 2012
          : 23
          : 1
          : 59-64
          Article
          10.1093/annonc/mdr052
          21460378
          © 2012

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          http://www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/

          Comments

          Comment on this article