Integrated PET/CT: Current Applications and Future Directions

For the past 5 years, combined positron emission tomography (PET) and computed tomography (CT), or PET/CT, has grown because the PET portion provides information that is very different from that obtainable with other imaging modalities. However, the paucity of anatomic landmarks on PET images makes a consistent “hardware fusion” to anatomic cross-sectional data extremely useful. Clinical experience indicates a single direction: Addition of CT to PET improves specificity foremost, but also sensitivity, and the addition of PET to CT adds sensitivity and specificity in tumor imaging. Thus, PET/CT is a more accurate test than either of its individual components and is probably also better than side-by-side viewing of images from both modalities. The synergistic advantage of adding CT is that the attenuation correction needed for PET can also be derived from the CT data, an advantage not obtainable by integrating PET and magnetic resonance imaging. This makes PET/CT 25%–30% faster than PET alone with standard attenuation-correction methods, leading to higher patient throughput and a more comfortable examination, which typically last 30 minutes or less. Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT appears to provide relevant information in the staging and therapy monitoring of many tumors, including lung carcinoma, mesothelioma, colorectal cancer, lymphoma, melanoma, and many others, with the notable exception of prostatic cancer. For prostatic cancer, choline derivatives may become useful radiopharmaceuticals. The published literature on the applications of FDG PET/CT in oncology is still limited, but several well-designed studies have demonstrated the benefits of PET/CT.

© RSNA, 2006

References

  • 1 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1369–1379. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 von Schulthess GK. Clinical molecular anatomic imaging: PET, PET/CT and SPECT/CT. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2003. Google Scholar
  • 3 Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002;225:575–581. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kinahan PE, Townsend DW, Beyer T, Sashin D. Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 1998;25:2046–2053. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burger C, Goerres G, Schoenes S, Buck A, Lonn AH, von Schulthess GK. PET attenuation coefficients from CT images: experimental evaluation of the transformation of CT into PET 511-keV attenuation coefficients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:922–927. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dizendorf E, Hany TF, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Burger C. Cause and magnitude of the error induced by oral CT contrast agent in CT-based attenuation correction of PET emission studies. J Nucl Med 2003;44:732–738. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Visvikis D, Costa DC, Croasdale I, et al. CT-based attenuation correction in the calculation of semi-quantitative indices of [18F]FDG uptake in PET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:344–353. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nehmeh SA, Erdi YE, Kalaigian H, et al. Correction for oral contrast artifacts in CT attenuation-corrected PET images obtained by combined PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1940–1944. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Goerres GW, Burger C, Kamel E, et al. Respiration-induced attenuation artifact at PET/CT: technical considerations. Radiology 2003;226:906–910. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kamel EM, Burger C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK, Goerres GW. Impact of metallic dental implants on CT-based attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT scanner. Eur Radiol 2003;13:724–728. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cohade C, Osman M, Marshall LN, Wahl RN. PET-CT: accuracy of PET and CT spatial registration of lung lesions. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:721–726. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kamel E, Hany TF, Burger C, et al. CT vs 68Ge attenuation correction in a combined PET/CT system: evaluation of the effect of lowering the CT tube current. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:346–350. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001;42(suppl 5):1S–93S. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, et al. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2500–2507. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H, et al. Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:4357–4368. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Keidar Z, Haim N, Guralnik L, et al. PET/CT using 18F-FDG in suspected lung cancer recurrence: diagnostic value and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1640–1646. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kamel IR, Cohade C, Neyman E, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. Incremental value of CT in PET/CT of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Abdom Imaging 2004;29:663–668. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Reinartz P, Wieres FJ, Schneider W, Schur A, Buell U. Side-by-side reading of PET and CT scans in oncology: which patients might profit from integrated PET/CT? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:1456–1461. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 2003;229(2):526–533. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ciernik IF, Dizendorf E, Baumert BG, et al. Radiation treatment planning with an integrated positron emission and computer tomography (PET/CT): a feasibility study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;57:853–863. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Asamura H, Suzuki K, Kondo H, Tsuchiya R. Where is the boundary between N1 and N2 stations in lung cancer? Ann Thorac Surg 2000;70:1839–1845. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Santos Dellea MM, Hany TF, Jermann M, Küng M, Stahel RA, Steinert HC. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: response evaluation with integrated PET-CT imaging (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2004; 648. Google Scholar
  • 23 American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures, 2001. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society, 2001; 1–44. Google Scholar
  • 24 Steele G Jr, Ravikumar TS. Resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: biologic perspective. Ann Surg 1989;210:127–138. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Abdel-Nabi H, Doerr RJ, Lamonica DM, et al. Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: correlation with histopathologic and CT findings. Radiology 1998;206:755–760. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O, Visokai V, Trubac M, Schneiderova M. Routine (18)F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1784–1788. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zervos EE, Badgwell BD, Burak WE Jr, Arnold MW, Martin EW. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as an adjunct to carcinoembryonic antigen in the management of patients with presumed recurrent colorectal cancer and nondiagnostic radiologic workup. Surgery 2001;130:636–643. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Goldberg RM, Fleming TR, Tangen CM, et al. Surgery for recurrent colon cancer: strategies for identifying resectable recurrence and success rates after resection. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, and the Southwest Oncology Group. Ann Intern Med 1998;129:27–35. Google Scholar
  • 29 Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E, et al. Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:894–901. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ruers TJ, Langenhoff BS, Neeleman N, et al. Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:388–395. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Valk PE, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK. Cost-effectiveness of PET imaging in clinical oncology. Nucl Med Biol 1996;23:737–743. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1797–1803. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H, et al. Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 2004;232(3):815–822. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, McCormack L, Kadry Z, Clavien PA. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240:1027–1034. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Park KC, Schwimmer J, Shepherd JE, et al. Decision analysis for the cost-effective management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 2001;233:310–319. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Joensuu H, Roberts PJ, Sarlomo-Rikala M, et al. Effect of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor STI571 in a patient with a metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1052–1056. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Goerres GW, Stupp R, Barghouth G, et al. The value of PET, CT and in-line PET/CT in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours: long-term outcome of treatment with imatinib mesylate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:153–162. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Antoch G, Kanja J, Bauer S, et al. Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med 2004;45:357–365. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol 1998;9:1117–1122. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, et al. Lymphoma: role of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) PET in nodal staging. Radiology 1997;203:795–800. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Stumpe KD, Urbinelli M, Steinert HC, Glanzmann C, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. Whole-body positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of lymphoma: effectiveness and comparison with computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:721–728. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y, Fillet G. The value of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in disease staging and therapy assessment. Ann Oncol 2002;13:227–234. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Jerusalem GH, Beguin YP. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL): relationship between tracer uptake and pathological findings, including preliminary experience in the staging of low-grade NHL. Clin Lymphoma 2002;3:56–61. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Zijlstra JM, Hoekstra OS, Raijmakers PG, et al. 18FDG positron emission tomography versus 67Ga scintigraphy as prognostic test during chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2003;123:454–462. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Coleman M, Vallabhajosula S, Goldsmith SJ. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. Cancer 2002;94:879–888. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Metser U, Goor O, Lerman H, Naparstek E, Even-Sapir E. PET-CT of extranodal lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1579–1586. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging—do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology 2004;232(3):823–829. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Kitagawa Y, Nishizawa S, Sano K, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-FDG PET with conventional imaging modalities (MRI, CT, and 67Ga scintigraphy) in assessment of combined intraarterial chemotherapy and radiotherapy for head and neck carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:198–206. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Schoder H, Yeung HW, Gonen M, Kraus D, Larson SM. Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 2004;231(1):65–72. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Kamel EM, Goerres GW, Burger C, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy in patients with lung cancer: detection with PET-CT image fusion—report of six cases. Radiology 2002;224:153–156. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Cohade C, Osman M, Pannu HK, Wahl RL. Uptake in supraclavicular area fat (“USA-Fat”): description on 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2003;44:170–176. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Kamel EM, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, et al. Significance of incidental 18F-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET/CT: correlation with endoscopic and histopathologic results. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1804–1810. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Zhuang H, Kumar R, Mandel S, Alavi A. Investigation of thyroid, head, and neck cancers with PET. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:1101–1111. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Rogers JW, Greven KM, McGuirt WF, et al. Can post-RT neck dissection be omitted for patients with head-and-neck cancer who have a negative PET scan after definitive radiation therapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;58:694–697. Google Scholar
  • 55 Kubota K, Yokoyama J, Yamaguchi K, et al. FDG-PET delayed imaging for the detection of head and neck cancer recurrence after radio-chemotherapy: comparison with MRI/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:590–595. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Yeretsian RA, Blodgett TM, Branstetter BF 4th, Roberts MM, Meltzer CC. Teflon-induced granuloma: a false-positive finding with PET resolved with combined PET and CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24(6):1164–1166. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, et al. In vivo assessment of glucose metabolism in hepatocellular carcinoma with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 1995;36:1811–1817. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Torizuka T, Tamaki N, Inokuma T, et al. Value of fluorine-18-FDG-PET to monitor hepatocellular carcinoma after interventional therapy. J Nucl Med 1994;35:1965–1969. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Heinrich S, Goerres GW, Schafer M, et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness. Ann Surg 2005;242:235–243. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Yancik R. Ovarian cancer: age contrasts in incidence, histology, disease stage at diagnosis, and mortality. Cancer 1993;71:517–523. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Sironi S, Messa C, Mangili G, et al. Integrated FDG PET/CT in patients with persistent ovarian cancer: correlation with histologic findings. Radiology 2004;233(2):433–440. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Pannu HK, Cohade C, Bristow RE, Fishman EK, Wahl RL. PET-CT detection of abdominal recurrence of ovarian cancer: radiologic-surgical correlation. Abdom Imaging 2004;29:398–403. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Picchio M, Sironi S, Messa C, et al. Advanced ovarian carcinoma: usefulness of [(18)F]FDG-PET in combination with CT for lesion detection after primary treatment. Q J Nucl Med 2003;47:77–84. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Perez CA, Grigsby PW, Nene SM, et al. Effect of tumor size on the prognosis of carcinoma of the uterine cervix treated with irradiation alone. Cancer 1992;69:2796–2806. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Heller PB, Maletano JH, Bundy BN, Barnhill DR, Okagaki T. Clinical-pathologic study of stage IIB, III, and IVA carcinoma of the cervix: extended diagnostic evaluation for paraaortic node metastasis—a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1990;38:425–430. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F. Lymph node staging by positron emission tomography in patients with carcinoma of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3745–3749. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Grisaru D, Almog B, Levine C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in patients with gynecological malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 2004;94:680–684. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Lerman H, Metser U, Grisaru D, Fishman A, Lievshitz G, Even-Sapir E. Normal and abnormal 18F-FDG endometrial and ovarian uptake in pre- and postmenopausal patients: assessment by PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45:266–271. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Zangheri B, Messa C, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Landoni C, Fazio F. PET/CT and breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(suppl 1):S135–S142. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Dizendorf E, Baumert B, von Schulthess GK, Luetolf UM, Steinert HC. The impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) on planning of radiotherapy [in Russian]. Ter Arkh 2001;73:11–14. Google Scholar
  • 71 Bradley J, Thorstad WL, Mutic S, et al. Impact of FDG-PET on radiation therapy volume delineation in non-small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:78–86. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Namdar M, Hany TF, Koepfli P, et al. Integrated PET/CT for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a feasibility study. J Nucl Med 2005;46:930–935. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Sung J, Espiritu JI, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in the diagnosis and staging of clinically advanced prostate cancer. BJU Int 2003;92:24–27. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Scattoni V, Montorsi F, Picchio M, et al. Diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2004;93:680–688. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Schmid DT, John H, Zweifel R, et al. Fluorocholine PET/CT in patients with prostate cancer: initial experience. Radiology 2005;235(2):623–628. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Tang G, Wang M, Tang X, Luo L, Gan M. Synthesis and evaluation of O-(3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-L-tyrosine as an oncologic PET tracer. Nucl Med Biol 2003;30:733–739. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Hoegerle S, Altehoefer C, Ghanem N, et al. Whole-body 18F dopa PET for detection of gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors. Radiology 2001;220:373–380. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Bleeker-Rovers CP, de Kleijn EM, Corstens FH, van der Meer JW, Oyen WJ. Clinical value of FDG PET in patients with fever of unknown origin and patients suspected of focal infection or inflammation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:29–37. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 79 de Winter F, van de Wiele C, Vogelaers D, de Smet K, Verdonk R, Dierckx RA. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography: a highly accurate imaging modality for the diagnosis of chronic musculoskeletal infections. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A:651–660. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Keidar Z, Engel A, Nitecki S, Bar Shalom R, Hoffman A, Israel O. PET/CT using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose for the evaluation of suspected infected vascular graft. Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5:23–25. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Schiesser M, Stumpe KDM, Trentz O, Kossmann T, von Schulthess GK. Detection of metallic implant–associated infections with FDG PET in patients with trauma: correlation with microbiologic results. Radiology 2003;226(2):391–398. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Stumpe KD, Notzli HP, Zanetti M, et al. FDG PET for differentiation of infection and aseptic loosening in total hip replacements: comparison with conventional radiography and three-phase bone scintigraphy. Radiology 2004;231(2):333–341. LinkGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2006