Vol 25, No 1 (2022)
Research paper
Published online: 2022-01-18

open access

Page views 6357
Article views/downloads 1099
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Sensitivity of [18F]FDG PET/CT and classification of the primary tumor site in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary

Hasan Ikbal Atilgan1, Hulya Yalcin1
Pubmed: 35137930
Nucl. Med. Rev 2022;25(1):1-5.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to find the sensitivity of the [18F]FDG PET/CT and the classification of the primary sites of carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) as a single-center experience.


Material and methods: Sixty-eight patients with a mean age of 62.43 ± 12.78 years were included in this study retrospectively. Sixty-five patients had biopsy or surgery after PET/CT, which revealed pathological diagnoses of malign primary tumors, while primary tumor site could not be detected in three patients with histopathological examination. We evaluated the primary site of CUP with [18F]FDG PET/CT.


Results: Primary sites of three patients were not determined by histopathological examination. Malign lesions indicating the primary site of tumor were identified in 52 of 68 patients with PET/CT correctly. The primary tumor was lung cancer in 14 patients, cholangiocellular cancer in 9 patients, lymphoma in 9 patients, pancreas cancer in 6 patients, gastric cancer in 4 patients, ovary cancer in 4 patients, colon cancer in 4 patients, breast cancer in 3 patients, hepatocellular cancer in 2 patients, rectal cancer in 2 patients, sarcoma in 2 patients, esophagus, renal cell cancer, squamous cell cancer, endometrium cancer, malign melanoma, and multiple myeloma in 1 patient with histopathological examination. PET/CT was false positive in one patient. There were 13 patients in whom primary tumor could not be localized by PET/CT, but was diagnosed by histopathological evaluation.


Conclusions: PET/CT should be the first-line diagnostic tool for CUP, other diagnostic imaging tools should be applied after a negative whole-body PET/CT.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Losa F, Iglesias L, Pané M, et al. 2018 consensus statement by the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the diagnosis and treatment of cancer of unknown primary. Clin Transl Oncol. 2018; 20(11): 1361–1372.
  2. Kwee TC, Kwee RM. Combined FDG-PET/CT for the detection of unknown primary tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2009; 19(3): 731–744.
  3. Moller AK, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT as a diagnostic tool in patients with extracervical carcinoma of unknown primary site: a literature review. Oncologist. 2011; 16(4): 445–451.
  4. Riaz S, Nawaz MK, Faruqui ZS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography in the evaluation of carcinoma of unknown primary. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2016; 25(1): 11–18.
  5. Cetin Avci N, Hatipoglu F, Alacacıoglu A, et al. FDG PET/CT and conventional imaging methods in cancer of unknown primary: an approach to overscanning. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018; 52(6): 438–444.
  6. Garin E, Prigent-Lejeune F, Lesimple T, et al. Impact of PET-FDG in the diagnosis and therapeutic care of patients presenting with metastases of unknown primary. Cancer Invest. 2007; 25(4): 232–239.
  7. Cengiz A, Göksel S, Yürekli Y. Diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2018; 27(3): 126–132.
  8. Yapar Z, Kibar M, Yapar AF, et al. The value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in carcinoma of an unknown primary: diagnosis and follow-up. Nucl Med Commun. 2010; 31(1): 59–66.
  9. Pavlidis N, Pentheroudakis G. Cancer of unknown primary site. Lancet. 2012; 379(9824): 1428–1435.
  10. Liu Y. FDG PET/CT for metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary of the head and neck. Oral Oncol. 2019; 92: 46–51.
  11. Pavlidis N, Fizazi K. Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP). Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2009; 69(3): 271–278.
  12. Han A, Xue J, Hu M, et al. Clinical value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in detecting primary tumor for patients with carcinoma of unknown primary. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012; 36(5): 470–475.
  13. Pak K, Kim SJ, Kim IJ, et al. Clinical implication of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in carcinoma of unknown primary. Neoplasma. 2011; 58(2): 135–139.
  14. Kinder KJ, Lavertu P, Yao M. Positron emission tomography in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary. PET Clin. 2012; 7(4): 443–452.
  15. Burglin SA, Hess S, Høilund-Carlsen PF, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of the primary tumor in adults with extracervical metastases from cancer of unknown primary: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(16): e6713.
  16. Jain A, Srivastava MK, Pawaskar AS, et al. Contrast-enhanced [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-computed tomography as an initial imaging modality in patients presenting with metastatic malignancy of undefined primary origin. Indian J Nucl Med. 2015; 30(3): 213–220.
  17. Kaya AO, Coskun U, Unlu M, et al. Whole body 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in the detection of primary tumours in patients with a metastatic carcinoma of unknown origin. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2008; 9(4): 683–686.
  18. Breuer N, Behrendt FF, Heinzel A, et al. Prognostic relevance of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in carcinoma of unknown primary. Clin Nucl Med. 2014; 39(2): 131–135.
  19. Deonarine P, Han S, Poon FW, et al. The role of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the management of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary. Scott Med J. 2013; 58(3): 154–162.
  20. Fencl P, Belohlavek O, Skopalova M, et al. Prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in 190 patients with carcinoma of unknown primary. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007; 34(11): 1783–1792.
  21. Tamam MO, Mulazimoglu M, Guveli TK, et al. Prediction of survival and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy whole body 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the detection carcinoma of unknown primary origin. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012; 16(15): 2120–2130.
  22. Koç ZP, Kara PÖ, Dağtekin A. Detection of unknown primary tumor in patients presented with brain metastasis by F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography. CNS Oncol. 2018; 7(2): CNS12.
  23. Dandekar MR, Kannan S, Rangarajan V, et al. Utility of PET in unknown primary with cervical metastasis: a retrospective study. Indian J Cancer. 2011; 48(2): 181–186.
  24. Fan HB, Wang AJ, Yang DL, et al. Use of 18F-FDG PET/CT to locate primary malignancies in patients with hepatic cirrhosis and malignant ascites. Chin J Cancer Res. 2013; 25(5): 500–504.
  25. Budak E, Yanarateş A. Role of F-FDG PET/CT in the detection of primary malignancy in patients with bone metastasis of unknown origin. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol (Engl Ed). 2020; 39(1): 14–19.
  26. Møller AK, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, et al. A prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET/CT and CT as diagnostic tools to identify the primary tumor site in patients with extracervical carcinoma of unknown primary site. Oncologist. 2012; 17(9): 1146–1154.
  27. Park JS, Yim JJ, Kang WJ, et al. Detection of primary sites in unknown primary tumors using FDG-PET or FDG-PET/CT. BMC Res Notes. 2011; 4: 56.
  28. Reinert CP, Sekler J, la Fougère C, et al. Impact of PET/CT on clinical management in patients with cancer of unknown primary-a PET/CT registry study. Eur Radiol. 2020; 30(3): 1325–1333.
  29. Yu X, Li X, Song X, et al. Advantages and disadvantages of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in carcinoma of unknown primary. Oncol Lett. 2016; 12(5): 3785–3792.