Total amount: € 0,00
A Journal on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
Affiliated to the and to the International Research Group of Immunoscintigraphy
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,413
Online ISSN 1827-1936
CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF AMYLOID IMAGIN IN CROSS SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL STUDIES
Ouvrier M. J. 1,2, Diologent B. 3, Edet-Sanson A. 1,2, Callonnec F. 3, Hitzel A. 1,2, Pesquet A. S. 3, Hapdey S. 1,2, Modzelewski R. 1,2, Thillays M. 4, Menard J. F. 5, Jardin F. 6, Tilly H. 6, Vera P. 1, 2
1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Centre, Rouen, France;
2 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France;
3 Department of Radiology, Henri Becquerel Centre, Rouen, France;
4 Department of Clinical Research, Henri Becquerel Centre, Rouen, France;
5 Department of Biostatistics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France;
6 Department of Haematology, Henri Becquerel Centre, Rouen, France
AIM: We assessed in this study the influence of contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT) on PET/CT interpretation and PET/CT on ceCT interpretation in patients with lymphoma, before and after chemotherapy.
METHODS: Fifty patients with Hodgkin disease (N.=17) or non-Hodgkin lymphomas (N.=33) were assessed before and after chemotherapy. PET/CT were performed 60 minutes after injection of FDG. Iopamidol was then injected and followed, 50 seconds later, by another CT. PET images were successively reconstructed using non-enhanced CT (PET-) and ceCT (PET+). Four nuclear physicians rated PET- and PET+ in random order. Three radiologists initially rated ceCT alone and then ceCT along with PET+.
RESULTS: Before chemotherapy, global agreement (GA) was 99% (k=0.96) when PET- was compared to PET+. Nine (5%) lesions were discordant, 5 according to PET- and 4 to PET+. After chemotherapy, GA was 99% (k=0.91). Eight (15%) lesions were discordant, 3 according to PET- and 5 to PET+. Before chemotherapy, GA was 97% (k=0.91) when ceCT was compared to ceCT with PET+. Twenty-one (12%) lesions were discordant, 16 when ceCT were analyzed alone and 5 when ceCT was analyzed with PET+. After chemotherapy, GA was 95% (k=0.76). All 30 (35%) discordant lesions were positive according to ceCT alone. A significant difference between the 2 procedures was found in the pelvis and in the groin (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: PET+ did not differ from PET-, before and after chemotherapy. Fewer abnormalities were observed, when ceCT was analyzed with PET+, particularly after chemotherapy, due to residual masses that are better analyzed with functional imaging.