2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Conventional Cancer Screening versus PET/CT in Dermatomyositis/Polymyositis

      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

          To determine the value of whole-body [(18)F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for diagnosing occult malignant disease in patients with myositis compared with broad conventional cancer screening. We prospectively studied 55 consecutive patients with a recent diagnosis of myositis in 3 teaching hospitals over a 3-year period by whole-body FDG-PET/CT and compared the results with those of conventional cancer screening, which included thoracoabdominal CT, mammography, gynecologic examination, ultrasonography, and tumor marker analysis. Comparisons were made using predictive values and their 95% confidence intervals. A total of 9 of 55 patients were diagnosed with paraneoplastic myositis. FDG uptake was positive in 7 patients (1 false-positive), negative in 44 patients (3 false-negative), and inconclusive in 4 patients. Positive and negative predictive values of FDG-PET/CT for the diagnosis of cancer were 85.7% and 93.8%, respectively. Conventional screening was cancer-positive in 9 patients (2 false-positive) and negative in the remaining 46 patients (2 false-negative). Positive and negative predictive values were 77.8% and 95.7%, respectively. The overall predictive value of broad conventional screening was the same as that of FDG-PET/CT (92.7 vs 92.7). The performance of FDG-PET/CT, a single imaging study, for diagnosing occult malignant disease in patients with myositis was comparable to that of broad conventional screening, which includes multiple tests. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The American Journal of Medicine
          The American Journal of Medicine
          Elsevier BV
          00029343
          June 2010
          June 2010
          : 123
          : 6
          : 558-562
          Article
          10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.11.012
          20569766
          © 2010

          Comments

          Comment on this article