Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Nuclear Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a promising screening modality targeting whole body. However, the validity of PET cancer screening remains to be assessed. Even the screening accuracy for whole-body screening using FDG-PET has not been evaluated. In this study, we investigated the screening accuracy of PET cancer screening.

Methods

A total of 2911 asymptomatic participants (1629 men and 1282 women, mean age 59.79 years) underwent both FDG-PET and other thorough examinations for multiple organs (gastrofiberscopy, total colonofiberscopy or barium enema, low-dose thin section computed tomography and sputum cytology, abdominal ultrasonography, an assay of prostate-specific antigen, mammography, mammary ultrasonography, Pap smear for the uterine cervix, and magnetic resonance imaging for the endometrium and ovaries) between February 2004 and January 2005, and followed sufficiently. The detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of FDG-PET were calculated using cancer data obtained from all examinations along with a 1 year follow-up.

Results

From among 2911 participants FDG-PET found 28 cancers, 129 cancers were PET negative. PET-positive cancers comprised seven colorectal cancers, four lung cancers, four thyroid cancers, three breast cancers, two gastric cancers, two prostate cancers, two small intestinal sarcomas (gastrointestinal stromal tumors), one malignant lymphoma, one head and neck malignancy (nasopharyngeal carcinoid tumor), one thymoma, and one hepatocellular carcinoma. PET-negative cancers included 22 gastric cancers and 20 prostate cancers that were essentially difficult to detect using FDG-PET. The overall detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were estimated to be 0.96%, 17.83%, 95.15%, and 11.20%, respectively.

Conclusions

FDG-PET can detect a variety of cancers at an early stage as part of a whole-body screening modality. The detection rate of PET cancer screening was higher than that of other screening modalities, which had already shown evidence of efficacy. However, the sensitivity of PET cancer screening was lower than that of other thorough examinations performed at our institute. FDG-PET has some limitations, and cancer screening using only FDG-PET is likely to miss some cancers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hamashima H, Sobue T, Muramatsu Y, Saito H, Moriyama N, Kakizoe T. Comparison of observed and expected numbers of detected cancers in the research center for cancer prevention and screening program. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2006;36:301–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rigo P, Paulus P, Kaschten BJ, Hustinx R, Bury T, Jerusalem G, et al. Oncological application of positron emission tomography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:1641–1674.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Adler LP, Blair HF, Makley JT, Williams RP, Joyce MJ, Leisure G, et al. Noninvasive grading of muscloskeletal tumors using PET. J Nucl Med 1991;32:1508–1512.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Price P, Jones T. Can positron emission tomography (PET) be used to detect subclinical response to cancer therapy? Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:1924–1927.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Okada J, Oonishi H, Yoshikawa K, Itami J, Uno K, Imaseki K, et al. FDG-PET for predicting the prognosis of malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med 1994;8:187–191.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakata B, Chung YS, Nishimura S, Nishihara T, Sakurai Y, Sawada T, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and the prognosis of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer 1997;79:695–699.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Oshida M, Uno K, Suzuki M, Nagashima T, Hashimoto H, Yagata H, et al. Predicting the prognosis of breast carcinoma patients with positron emission tomography using 2-deoxy-2-fluoro[18F]-d-glucose. Cancer 1998;82:2227–2234.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH, editors. TNM classification of malignant tumors. 5th ed. New York: Wiley; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yasuda S, Ide M, Fujii H, Nakahara T, Mochizuki Y, Tkahashi W, et al. Application of positron emission tnomography imaging to cancer screening. Br J Cancer 2000;83:1607–1611.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Halter G, Storck M, Guhlmann A, Frank J, Grosse S, Liewald F. FDG positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of peripheral focal lesions. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;48:97–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cook GJ, Fogelman I, Maisey MN. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron-emission tomography scanning: potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med 1996;26:308–314.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Moran JK, Lee HB, Blaufox MD. Optimization of urinary excretion during PET imaging. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1352–1357.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Higashi K, Ueda Y, Seki H, Yuasa K, Oguchi M, Noguchi T, et al. Fluorine-18-FDG PET imaging is negative in bronchioloalveolar lung carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1998;39:1016–1020.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, Fink U, Siewert JR, Schwaiger M. Correlation of FDG uptake in gastric carcinomas with endoscopic and histopathological findings (abstract). J Nucl Med 2001;42Suppl:78P.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2001;285:914–924.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Miyakita H, Tokunaga M, Onda H, Usui Y, Kinoshita H, Kawamura N, et al. Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for detection of renal cell carcinoma and immunohistochemical glucose transporter 1 (GLUT-1) expression in the cancer. Int J Urol 2002;9:15–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, Nagata Y, Sasayama S, Yonekura Y, et al. In vivo assessment of glucose metabolism in hepatocellular carcinoma with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1811–1817.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kang KW, Kim SK, Kang HS, Lee ES, Sim JS, Lee IG, et al. Prevalence and risk of cancer of focal thyroid incidentaloma identified by 18F-fluolrodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for metastasis evaluation and cancer screening in healthy subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:4100–4104.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ono K, Ochiai R, Yoshida T, Kitagawa M, Omagari J, Kobayashi H, et al. The detection rate and tumor clinical/pathological stages of whole body FDG-PET cancer screening. Ann Nucl Med 2007;21:65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hisamichi S, Tsuji I, Tsubono Y, Nishino Z. The effectiveness of cancer screening in Japan (in Japanese). Sendai: Tohoku University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yasuda S, Ide M. PET and cancer screening. Ann Nucl Med 2005;19:167–177.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Minamimoto R, Senda M, Uno K, Jinnouchi S, Iinuma T, Ito K, et al. Performance profile of FDG-PET and PET/CT for cancer screening on the basis of a Japanese Nationwide Survey. Ann Nucl Med 2007;21:481–491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutch SM, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3S):21–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Jinnouchi S, Nakajo M, Tateno R, Tanabe H. Analysis of colon cancer detected in cancer screening with FDG-PET: comparing with Feces occult blood test and CEA (in Japanese). Nihon Gan-Kenshinn Shindan Gakkaishi 2007;14:150–155.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takashi Terauchi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Terauchi, T., Murano, T., Daisaki, H. et al. Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med 22, 379–385 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-008-0130-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-008-0130-7

Keywords

Navigation