Original Article
Preoperative Staging of Lung Cancer with Combined PET–CT
N Engl J Med 2009; 361:32-39July 2, 2009
- Abstract
Background
Fast and accurate staging is essential for choosing treatment for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The purpose of this randomized study was to evaluate the clinical effect of combined positron-emission tomography and computed tomography (PET–CT) on preoperative staging of NSCLC.
Methods
We randomly assigned patients who were referred for preoperative staging of NSCLC to either conventional staging plus PET–CT or conventional staging alone. Patients were followed until death or for at least 12 months. The primary end point was the number of futile thoracotomies, defined as any one of the following: a thoracotomy with the finding of pathologically confirmed mediastinal lymph-node involvement (stage IIIA [N2]), stage IIIB or stage IV disease, or a benign lung lesion; an exploratory thoracotomy; or a thoracotomy in a patient who had recurrent disease or death from any cause within 1 year after randomization.
Results
From January 2002 through February 2007, we randomly assigned 98 patients to the PET–CT group and 91 to the conventional-staging group. Mediastinoscopy was performed in 94% of the patients. After PET–CT, 38 patients were classified as having inoperable NSCLC, and after conventional staging, 18 patients were classified thus. Sixty patients in the PET–CT group and 73 in the conventional-staging group underwent thoracotomy (P=0.004). Among these thoracotomies, 21 in the PET–CT group and 38 in the conventional-staging group were futile (P=0.05). The number of justified thoracotomies and survival were similar in the two groups.
Conclusions
The use of PET–CT for preoperative staging of NSCLC reduced both the total number of thoracotomies and the number of futile thoracotomies but did not affect overall mortality. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00867412.)
Media in This Article
Table 1
Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline.Table 2
Operability.Article Activity
- Article
Staging of non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was one of the first approved indications for the use of positron-emission tomography (PET).1,2 Since 2001, combined PET and computed tomography (PET–CT) has rapidly replaced stand-alone PET.3,4 The diagnostic capability of PET–CT in the preoperative staging of NSCLC is superior to that of CT alone and PET alone.5 The advantage is based mainly on a more accurate assignment of tumor stage (T stage) and to a lesser extent on defining the lymph-node stage (N stage).5-7 Whether the improved diagnostic accuracy improves management of the disease is unknown.
Two randomized trials have assessed the clinical effect of stand-alone PET. In a trial by van Tinteren et al.,8 the addition of stand-alone PET to conventional staging of NSCLC reduced the number of futile thoracotomies by 50%. A second randomized trial, however, did not show that adding PET reduced the number of thoracotomies.9
Identifying the stage of lung cancer helps determine the appropriate treatment and is essential for prognosis.10,11 Incorrect staging of NSCLC can result in resections of benign nodules and early local or distant relapse after surgery with curative intent.8,12 We report on a randomized trial to assess the clinical influence of preoperative staging with PET–CT.
Methods
Patients
We recruited patients from three departments of pulmonology in the area of Copenhagen. Patients were eligible if they were 18 to 80 years of age, had newly diagnosed or highly suspected NSCLC, and were considered to have operable disease after conventional-staging procedures13 (i.e., medical history, physical examination, blood test, contrast-enhanced CT scan of the chest and upper abdomen, and bronchoscopy). Exclusion criteria were type 1 diabetes, another malignant condition, confirmed distant metastases, known claustrophobia, and an estimated forced expiratory volume in 1 second of less than 30% after surgery. After conventional staging, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PET–CT and conventional staging, followed by further invasive diagnostic procedures such as mediastinoscopy and endoscopic or endobronchial ultrasonography (the PET–CT group), or to conventional staging and invasive diagnostic procedures alone (the conventional-staging group). In both groups, mediastinoscopy was mandatory. Randomization was performed centrally with the use of a permuted-block design, stratified according to sex and recruiting center.
Study Design
The study was initiated by the investigators, and the authors planned the study, gathered and analyzed data, wrote the manuscript, and made the decision to publish the findings. No financial support was received from companies that make PET–CT scanners. The study was approved by the ethics committee of each participating hospital and was conducted according to the Declarations of Helsinki and Tokyo. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Data were collected in a central database, managed by the Clinical Research Unit at the Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen.
PET–CT Imaging
All PET–CT scans were obtained in the Department of Clinical Physiology, Nuclear Medicine, and PET, Rigshospitalet. After a 6-hour fast, 400 MBq of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) was given intravenously, and after a 1-hour rest, the patient was scanned from the head to the upper thigh with the use of an integrated PET–CT system (GE Discovery LS, GE Healthcare). A diagnostic CT scan, obtained with the use of a standard protocol (80 to 100 mA, 120 kV, a tube-rotation time of 0.5 second per rotation, a pitch of 6, and a slice thickness of 5 mm, with 70 ml of intravenous contrast medium containing 300 mg of iodine per milliliter [Ultravist, Bayer Schering], administered at a rate of 2.5 ml per second), preceded the PET scan (a 5-minute emission scan per table position and 25 minutes total). The PET scan was reconstructed by filtered back-projection and ordered-subset expectation-maximization (OS-EM), with data from the CT scan used for attenuation correction.
An experienced radiologist and a nuclear medicine specialist evaluated the PET–CT images side by side, and a consensus was reached on the findings. A lesion with increased uptake of 18F-FDG in three planes as compared with background on a PET scan was classified as malignant. If the image could not be interpreted with confidence, the standardized uptake value (SUV), defined as the activity per milliliter within the region of interest divided by the injected dose in megabecquerels per gram of body weight, was calculated, and lesions with an SUV above 2.5 were deemed malignant. The tumor–node–metastasis (TNM) stage was assigned according to the revised classification of Mountain.14
Treatment and Follow-up
Before a decision to operate was made, a consensus on the TNM stage was reached by a pulmonologist and a thoracic surgeon on the basis of all available information (clinical data, initial CT scanning, PET–CT imaging, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy, and if available, endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration or endobronchial ultrasonography). Mediastinoscopy and endoscopic or endobronchial ultrasonography served as the standard for preoperative assessment of mediastinal lymph nodes. All patients with stage I to stage IIB NSCLC were offered surgery. Patients with involvement of mediastinal lymph nodes or distant metastases (stage IIIA [N2] to stage IV) were considered to have inoperable disease and were offered chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. Positive findings on PET–CT were further evaluated by biopsy or other imaging techniques (ultrasonography, radiography, or magnetic resonance imaging) at the discretion of the referring clinician. Follow-up data were retrieved from medical records and the local registry of patients.
Statistical Analysis
The primary end point of the study was the frequency of futile thoracotomies. The criteria for classifying a thoracotomy as futile included any one of the following findings or results: a benign lung lesion, pathologically proven mediastinal lymph-node involvement (stage IIIA [N2]), stage IIIB or IV disease, inoperable T3 or T4 disease, or recurrent disease or death from any cause within 1 year after randomization.8
To observe a difference of 15% in the number of futile thoracotomies between the PET–CT group and the conventional-staging group, with two-sided type I and type II error rates of 5% and 10%, respectively, an estimated 215 consecutive, unselected patients would have to be randomly assigned to each group. An interim analysis was planned after the inclusion of 220 patients. However, the study was closed after the inclusion of only 189 patients because of slow accrual. Until then, no data were analyzed.
The total number of thoracotomies and the number of futile thoracotomies in each group were compared by means of a chi-square test with a two-sided significance level of 0.05. When the expected number in any cell was less than five, a Fisher's exact test for two-by-two tables and a Fisher–Freeman–Halton test for two-by-k tables for binary comparison were used. Clinical characteristics of patients at randomization were compared with the use of an independent t-test for continuous variables and a chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. All reported P values are two-sided and have not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. Confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity were calculated with the use of the Wilson score method. Survival data were analyzed with the use of a log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed with the use of SPSS software, version 16, and StatXact software, version 8.
Results
Baseline Characteristics
From January 2002 through February 2007, a total of 189 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the PET–CT group (98 patients) or the conventional-staging group (91 patients). Eleven patients in the PET–CT group did not undergo PET–CT because of an unacceptably long waiting time for a scan or technical problems with the PET–CT equipment. One patient underwent PET–CT but declined all further staging procedures and surgery. Mediastinoscopy was performed in 89 patients in the PET–CT group (91%) and 88 in the conventional-staging group (97%) (P=0.33). Endoscopic ultrasonography was performed in 42 patients in the PET–CT group (43%) and 30 in the conventional-staging group (33%) (P=0.18). Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of the Patients at Baseline. shows the clinical characteristics of the patients in the two groups.Number of Thoracotomies
After staging, 60 patients in the PET–CT group (61%) and 73 in the conventional-staging group (80%) were considered to have operable disease and underwent thoracotomy (P=0.004) (Table 2Table 2
Operability.). After the exclusion of the 14 patients in the PET–CT group who did not undergo PET–CT and the 1 patient who underwent PET–CT but declined all further procedures, 52 of 83 patients in the PET–CT group (63%) underwent surgery, as did 73 of 91 in the conventional-staging group (80%) (P=0.01).In the PET–CT group, 38 patients were not offered surgery after final staging (Table 2). Of these 38 patients, 1 declined to undergo surgery, 1 had unconfirmed stage IV disease, and 13 (34%) were categorized as having inoperable NSCLC on the basis of PET–CT only. PET–CT scans showed previously unrecognized distant metastases in 9 of the 13 patients and unknown mediastinal metastases in 4 patients. The unknown mediastinal metastases were confirmed by endoscopic ultrasonography (three patients) or endobronchial ultrasonography (one patient). Seven patients in the PET–CT group had NSCLC that was categorized as inoperable on the basis of endoscopic ultrasonography with fine-needle aspiration alone — according to TNM staging, two patients had N2 disease, three had N3 disease, and two had inoperable T4 disease. Sixteen patients had NSCLC that was categorized as inoperable on the basis of mediastinoscopy; in 10 of these patients, NSCLC was also categorized as inoperable on the basis of the PET–CT scan. Three of the 16 patients did not undergo PET–CT.
In the conventional-staging group, 18 patients were not offered surgery after final staging. No patient was found to have stage IV disease, but 6 patients had stage IIIB disease and 12 had stage IIIA (N2) disease. Endoscopic ultrasonographic images showed unknown mediastinal metastases in 7 of these 18 patients. The remaining 11 patients with inoperable NSCLC were categorized as such on the basis of mediastinoscopy.
Futile Thoracotomies
Of the 60 patients in the PET–CT group who underwent thoracotomy, the procedure was futile in 21 patients (35%). In the conventional-staging group, 38 of 73 patients (52%) underwent a futile thoracotomy (P=0.05) (Table 3Table 3
Distribution of Futile Thoracotomies.). After the exclusion of the 14 patients in the PET–CT group who did not undergo PET–CT and the 1 patient who underwent PET–CT but declined further procedures, 13 of 52 patients in the PET–CT group (25%) underwent a futile thoracotomy, as compared with 38 of 73 patients in the conventional-staging group (52%) (P=0.002). Altogether, a total of 21 of 98 patients in the PET–CT group (21%) and 38 of 91 in the conventional-staging group (42%) underwent a futile thoracotomy. In other words, for every five PET–CT scans, one futile thoracotomy was avoided.A total of 39 patients in the PET–CT group (40%) and 35 in the conventional-staging group (38%) underwent surgery that was considered justifiable (nonfutile). Futile thoracotomies were performed in both groups, regardless of the clinical stage at presentation (Table 4Table 4
Futile Thoracotomies According to Clinical Stage at Presentation.).Diagnostic Accuracy
The diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity of the staging regimen in the two groups in terms of predicting operability can be calculated, assuming that none of the patients who were categorized as having inoperable disease after staging should have undergone surgery (specificity, 100%). For the PET–CT group, the diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69 to 86) and 64% (95% CI, 52 to 75), respectively. For the conventional-staging group, the accuracy and sensitivity were 60% (95% CI, 50 to 70) and 32% (95% CI, 21 to 45), respectively.
Follow-up
All patients were followed until death or for at least 12 months after inclusion in the trial. The mean follow-up time in both groups was 27 months. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both were given in 61% of the patients in the PET–CT group and in 57% in the conventional-staging group (P=0.05). There were no significant differences in survival between the two groups; median survival was 31 months in the PET–CT group and 49 months in the conventional-staging group (P=0.29). At follow-up, 56% of all patients had died (61% in the PET–CT group and 51% in the conventional-staging group, P=0.15). In most patients, death was caused by lung cancer; however, in six patients, death was caused by other factors. In the conventional-staging group, one patient with no known brain metastasis died from status epilepticus, and in the PET–CT group, five patients died from causes not directly related to lung cancer (stroke, esophageal cancer, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute myocardial infarction each caused one death, and one patient died of an unknown cause 4.5 years after successful surgery). One death in each group was attributable to complications after primary surgery.
Of the 21 patients in the PET–CT group who underwent a futile thoracotomy, 4 had a relapse or died from lung cancer within 1 year after inclusion in the trial (Table 3). Of the 38 patients in the conventional-staging group who underwent a futile thoracotomy, 13 had a relapse and 4 died of lung cancer within 1 year after inclusion.
During the follow-up period, 21 of 60 patients in the PET–CT group who underwent surgery and 26 of 73 in the conventional-staging group had a relapse (P=0.94). In the PET–CT group, 62% of patients had a local or regional relapse and 38% a distant relapse. In the conventional-staging group, 35% had a local or regional relapse, whereas 58% had a relapse at distant sites (P=0.007); localization of the relapse was imprecise for the remaining 7%.
Discussion
This randomized trial of combined PET–CT for the staging of lung cancer was closed prematurely because of slow accrual, but the findings confirm that PET–CT improves the preoperative staging of NSCLC, as Lardinois and colleagues also found.5 Furthermore, PET–CT has a potential clinical effect in that it reduces the number of futile thoracotomies and the total number of thoracotomies.
Our findings are similar to the results of the 2002 trial by van Tinteren et al. involving 188 patients with NSCLC,8 which showed that staging with stand-alone PET resulted in a relative reduction in the risk of futile thoracotomy of 51% and an absolute risk reduction of 20 percentage points. Despite a different distribution of clinical stage in the two studies (70% of the patients in the trial by van Tinteren et al. were classified as having TNM stage I to stage II disease at presentation, whereas only 34% of our patients presented with localized disease), the results were similar.
The definition of futile thoracotomy is controversial. Thoracotomy was considered futile if disease recurred or the patient died within 12 months after surgery (Table 3), which was the case in 20% of the patients in the PET–CT group and 45% in the conventional-staging group. Excluding these patients, the percentage of futile thoracotomies was virtually the same in the two groups (28% and 29% of all thoracotomies, respectively; P=1.00). However, if our definition of futile thoracotomy is accepted as a valid end point, the significantly higher number of early deaths and relapses in the conventional-staging group than in the PET–CT group was not due to chance or more successful surgery in the PET–CT group but instead reflects a better selection of patients for surgery in the PET–CT group.
An Australian multicenter study of 184 patients, 92% of whom had stage I NSCLC, showed no significant difference in the total number of thoracotomies between the group that underwent staging with stand-alone PET and the group that underwent staging without stand-alone PET.9 This study, however, did not use confirmatory invasive procedures (only 10 patients underwent mediastinoscopy).15
One of the strengths of the present study is the use of mediastinoscopy in most patients (94%), which revealed positive lymph nodes in 11% of the patients. Five of 21 patients in the PET–CT group (24%) and 6 of 38 patients in the conventional-staging group (16%) underwent thoracotomy that was futile because of incidental N2 disease (i.e., N2 disease detectable only by pathological examination of the surgical specimen). However, the effect of incidental N2 disease on the prognosis can be disputed, and it could be argued that these thoracotomies were not futile.16 Classifying the thoracotomies as justified in these 11 patients results in a frequency of futile thoracotomies of 27% (16 of 60) in the PET–CT group and 44% (32 of 73) in the conventional-staging group, which is still a significant difference (P=0.04).
In conclusion, we found that adding a PET–CT examination to the diagnostic regimen for patients with NSCLC improves sensitivity in preoperative staging. The addition of a PET–CT examination reduces the frequency of futile thoracotomies and the total number of thoracotomies, with no effect (negative or positive) on overall survival.
Supported by grants from the Danish Cancer Society and the Danish Center for Health Technology Assessment. The John and Birthe Meyer Foundation donated the PET–CT scanner.
Dr. Rasmussen reports receiving lecture fees from AstraZeneca. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
This article (10.1056/NEJMoa0900043) was updated on March 9, 2011, at NEJM.org.
We thank our colleagues for their assistance during the study period and data collection, especially chief chemist Nicolas Gillings, nurses Anne-Mette Buhl and Tine Hødding, and secretaries Susanne Andersen, Jetti Carlsen, Helle Hansen, Line Petersen, and Gudrun Semitoje.
Source Information
From Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen (B.F., U.L., J.M., A.L., A.B., J.R., I.S., G.J., J.P., L.H.); Odense University Hospital, Odense (B.F.); Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen (S.L., K.L., H.H., V.B., H.N.); Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup (P.C., A.D., P.V., N.M.); Naestved Hospital, Naestved (A.H.); Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus (T.R., S.K., H.M.); University of Southern Denmark, Odense (O.G.); and Herlev Hospital, Hellerup (B.S.) — all in Denmark.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Fischer at the Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense C, Denmark, or at bjerregaard.fischer@gmail.com.
- References
References
1
McCann J . PET scans approved for detecting metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:94-96
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
McCann J . New techniques catch lung cancers earlier. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1838-1839
Web of Science | Medline3
Beyer T ,Townsend DW ,Brun T , et al. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1369-1379
Web of Science | Medline4
von Schulthess GK . Cost considerations regarding an integrated CT-PET system. Eur Radiol 2000;10:Suppl 3:S377-S380
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Lardinois D ,Weder W ,Hany T , 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
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline6
Antoch G ,Stattaus J ,Nemat AT , et al. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology 2003;229:526-533
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Cerfolio RJ ,Ojha B ,Bryant AS ,Raghuveer V ,Mountz JM ,Bartolucci AA . The accuracy of integrated PET-CT compared with dedicated PET alone for the staging of patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;78:1017-1023
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline8
van Tinteren H ,Hoekstra OS ,Smit EF , et al. Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359:1388-1393
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
Viney RC ,Boyer MJ ,King MT , et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of the role of positron emission tomography in the management of stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2357-2362
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Molina JR ,Yang P ,Cassivi SD ,Schild SE ,Adjei AA . Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc 2008;83:584-594
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Tanoue LT . Staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2008;29:248-260
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Swensen SJ ,Brown LR ,Colby TV ,Weaver AL ,Midthun DE . Lung nodule enhancement at CT: prospective findings. Radiology 1996;201:447-455
Web of Science | Medline13
Danish Lung Cancer Group. Lung cancer — diagnosis and therapy. Aarhus, Denmark: Danish Lung Cancer Group, 2001. (In Danish.)
14
Mountain CF . Revisions in the International System for Staging Lung Cancer. Chest 1997;111:1710-1717
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
van Tinteren H ,Smit EF ,Hoekstra OS . FDG-PET in addition to conventional work-up in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1591-1592
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Robinson LA, Ruckdeschel JC, Wagner H Jr, Stevens CW, American College of Chest Physicians
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (65)
Citing Articles
1
Stephen R. Broderick, Bryan F. Meyers. (2012) PET Staging of Mediastinal Lymph Nodes in Thoracic Oncology. Thoracic Surgery Clinics
CrossRef2
Maren Schuhmann, Mark G. H. Bryant, Felix J. F. Herth, Daniela Gompelmann. (2012) The role of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) in radiographically occult mediastinal disease and the future of EBUS. Current Respiratory Care Reports
CrossRef3
A. Gomez-Caro, M. Boada, M. Carreno, M. Sanchez, P. Arguis, F. Lomena, J. Ramirez, L. Molins. (2012) False-negative rate after positron emission tomography/computer tomography scan for mediastinal staging in cI stage non-small-cell lung cancer. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
CrossRef4
Barbara M. Fischer, Jann Mortensen. (2012) The role of positron emission tomography for evaluation of lung nodules and staging lung cancer. Current Respiratory Care Reports
CrossRef5
Bruce E. Hillner, Anna N. Tosteson, Yunjie Song, Tor D. Tosteson, Tracy Onega, David C. Goodman, Barry A. Siegel. (2012) Growth in the Use of PET for Six Cancer Types After Coverage by Medicare: Additive or Replacement?. Journal of the American College of Radiology 9:1, 33-41
CrossRef6
Charles E. Ray, Benjamin English, Brian S. Funaki, Charles T. Burke, Nicholas Fidelman, Mark E. Ginsburg, Thomas B. Kinney, Jon K. Kostelic, Brian E. Kouri, Jonathan M. Lorenz, Ajit V. Nair, Albert A. Nemcek, Charles A. Owens, Anthony G. Saleh, George Vatakencherry, Tan-Lucien H. Mohammed. (2012) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Thoracic Nodules and Masses. Journal of the American College of Radiology 9:1, 13-19
CrossRef7
R. Cano Alonso, L. Herráiz Hidalgo, E. Álvarez Moreno, C. Paniagua Correa, V. Martínez de Vega. (2012) Papel de las técnicas de imagen en la nueva clasificación TNM del carcinoma broncogénico no microcítico. Radiología
CrossRef8
Sharma P. Riaz, Margreet Lüchtenborg, Ruth H. Jack, Victoria H. Coupland, Karen M. Linklater, Michael D. Peake, Henrik Møller. (2012) Variation in surgical resection for lung cancer in relation to survival: Population-based study in England 2004–2006. European Journal of Cancer 48:1, 54-60
CrossRef9
A A Memon, B Weber, M Winterdahl, S Jakobsen, P Meldgaard, H H T Madsen, S Keiding, E Nexo, B S Sorensen. (2011) PET imaging of patients with non-small cell lung cancer employing an EGF receptor targeting drug as tracer. British Journal of Cancer 105:12, 1850-1855
CrossRef10
Ching-Fei Chang, Afshin Rashtian, Michael K. Gould. (2011) The Use and Misuse of Positron Emission Tomography in Lung Cancer Evaluation. Clinics in Chest Medicine 32:4, 749-762
CrossRef11
Lin Zhao, Zhi-Yi He, Xiao-Ning Zhong, Miao-Ling Cui. (2011) 18FDG-PET/CT for detection of mediastinal nodal metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Surgical Oncology
CrossRef12
Julian G. Rosenman, Liyi Xie, Lawrence B. Marks. (2011) Selective Elective Nodal Irradiation: “Let’s Head ‘Em Off at the Pass”. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 81:5, 1208-1210
CrossRef13
Kazuo Kubota, Koji Murakami, Tomio Inoue, Harumi Itoh, Tsuneo Saga, Susumu Shiomi, Jun Hatazawa. (2011) Additional value of FDG-PET to contrast enhanced-computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of mediastinal lymph node metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer: a Japanese multicenter clinical study. Annals of Nuclear Medicine 25:10, 777-786
CrossRef14
Samjot Singh Dhillon, Jaspreet Kaur Dhillon, Sai Yendamuri. (2011) Mediastinal staging of non-small-cell lung cancer. Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine 5:6, 835-851
CrossRef15
Naomi E. Verstegen, Frank J. Lagerwaard, Cornelis J.A. Haasbeek, Ben J. Slotman, Suresh Senan. (2011) Outcomes of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy following a clinical diagnosis of stage I NSCLC: Comparison with a contemporaneous cohort with pathologically proven disease. Radiotherapy and Oncology 101:2, 250-254
CrossRef16
S. Mirpour, P. Meteesatien, A.H. Khandani. (2011) Does hyperglycemia affect the diagnostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT?. Revista Española de Medicina Nuclear
CrossRef17
Laurie L. Carr, James H. Finigan, Jeffrey A. Kern. (2011) Evaluation and Treatment of Patients with Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer. Medical Clinics of North America 95:6, 1041-1054
CrossRef18
Xiaolin Li, Huaqi Zhang, Ligang Xing, Honglian Ma, Peng Xie, Lin Zhang, Xiangying Xu, Jinbo Yue, Xindong Sun, Xudong Hu, Ming Chen, Wengui Xu, Lusheng Chen, Jinming Yu. (2011) Mediastinal lymph nodes staging by 18F-FDG PET/CT for early stage non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter study. Radiotherapy and Oncology
CrossRef19
I. Muylle, I. De Meulder, M. Bruyneel, V. Ninane. (2011) Le long fleuve tranquille de l’écho-endoscopie bronchique. Revue des Maladies Respiratoires
CrossRef20
Susan C. vanʼt Westeinde, Harry J. de Koning, Frederik B. Thunnissen, Matthijs Oudkerk, Harry J. M. Groen, Jan-Willem J. Lammers, Carla Weenink, Rene Vernhout, Kristiaan Nackaerts, Willem Mali, Rob J. van Klaveren. (2011) The Role of the (18)F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography Scan in the Nederlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek Lung Cancer Screening Trial. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 6:10, 1704-1712
CrossRef21
Daaron McField, Thomas Bauer. (2011) A Review of Noninvasive Staging of the Mediastinum for Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 20:4, 681-690
CrossRef22
Julio Sánchez de Cos, Jesús Hernández Hernández, Marcelo F. Jiménez López, Susana Padrones Sánchez, Antoni Rosell Gratacós, Ramón Rami Porta. (2011) SEPAR Guidelines for Lung Cancer Staging. Archivos de Bronconeumología (English Edition) 47:9, 454-465
CrossRef23
Julio Sánchez de Cos, Jesús Hernández Hernández, Marcelo F. Jiménez López, Susana Padrones Sánchez, Antoni Rosell Gratacós, Ramón Rami Porta. (2011) Normativa SEPAR sobre estadificación del cáncer de pulmón. Archivos de Bronconeumología 47:9, 454-465
CrossRef24
Matthias Dietzel, Torsten Hopp, Nicole Ruiter, Ramy Zoubi, Ingo B. Runnebaum, Werner A. Kaiser, Pascal A.T. Baltzer. (2011) Fusion of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography at 3.0T with X-ray mammograms: Pilot study evaluation using dedicated semi-automatic registration software. European Journal of Radiology 79:2, e98-e102
CrossRef25
Gail E. Darling, Donna E. Maziak, Richard I. Inculet, Karen Y. Gulenchyn, Albert A. Driedger, Yee C. Ung, Chu-Shu Gu, M. Sara Kuruvilla, Kathryn J. Cline, Jim A. Julian, William K. Evans, Mark N. Levine. (2011) Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Compared with Invasive Mediastinal Staging in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 6:8, 1367-1372
CrossRef26
D. Thomson, P. Hulse, P. Lorigan, C. Faivre-Finn. (2011) The role of positron emission tomography in management of small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 73:2, 121-126
CrossRef27
Sanjay Thulkar, Gauthier Namur, Roland Hustinx, Ashu Seith Bhalla, Rakesh Kumar. (2011) Multimodality Staging of Lung Cancer. PET Clinics 6:3, 251-263
CrossRef28
Peter Spiegler. (2011) Evaluating the PET Scan in Mediastinal Staging. Clinical Pulmonary Medicine 18:4, 201
CrossRef29
Dong-Yeop Shin, Sae-Won Han, Do-Youn Oh, Seock-Ah Im, Tae-You Kim, Yung-Jue Bang. (2011) Prognostic implication of 18F FDG-PET in patients with extrahepatic metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing systemic treatment, a retrospective cohort study. Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 68:1, 165-175
CrossRef30
Eithne DeLappe, Mark Dunphy. (2011) 18F-2-Deoxy-d-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography in Lung Cancer. Seminars in Roentgenology 46:3, 208-223
CrossRef31
G.J. Förster, U. Kraemer. (2011) Stellenwert der PET-CT in der thorakalen Diagnostik. Der Pneumologe 8:4, 252-259
CrossRef32
Patricia Ibeas, Blanca Cantos, José Manuel Gasent, Begoña Rodríguez, Mariano Provencio. (2011) PET-CT in the staging and treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical and Translational Oncology 13:6, 368-377
CrossRef33
Andreas K. Buck, Ken Herrmann, Jonas Schreyögg. (2011) PET/CT for staging lung cancer: costly or cost-saving?. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 38:5, 799-801
CrossRef34
Rikke Søgaard, Barbara Malene B. Fischer, Jann Mortensen, Liselotte Højgaard, Ulrik Lassen. (2011) Preoperative staging of lung cancer with PET/CT: cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 38:5, 802-809
CrossRef35
Michael K. Gould, Ellen M. Schultz, Todd H. Wagner, Xiangyan Xu, Sharfun J. Ghaus, Robert B. Wallace, Dawn Provenzale, David H. Au. (2011) Disparities in Lung Cancer Staging with Positron Emission Tomography in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Study. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 6:5, 875-883
CrossRef36
Edward L. Korn, Boris Freidlin. (2011) Inefficacy Interim Monitoring Procedures in Randomized Clinical Trials: The Need to Report. The American Journal of Bioethics 11:3, 2-10
CrossRef37
Fischer, Barbara M., Lassen, Ulrik, Højgaard, Liselotte, . (2011) PET–CT in Preoperative Staging of Lung Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 364:10, 980-981
Full Text38
Xinhua Qu, Xiaolu Huang, Weili Yan, Lianming Wu, Kerong Dai. (2011) A meta-analysis of 18FDG-PET–CT, 18FDG-PET, MRI and bone scintigraphy for diagnosis of bone metastases in patients with lung cancer. European Journal of Radiology
CrossRef39
Anthony Visioni, Julian Kim. (2011) Positron Emission Tomography for Benign and Malignant Disease. Surgical Clinics of North America 91:1, 249-266
CrossRef40
Michael J. Ward, Aaron Sodickson, Deborah B. Diercks, Ali S. Raja. (2011) Cost-effectiveness of Lower Extremity Compression Ultrasound in Emergency Department Patients With a High Risk of Hemodynamically Stable Pulmonary Embolism. Academic Emergency Medicine 18:1, 22-31
CrossRef41
Satoshi Shiono, Masami Abiko, Toru Sato. (2011) Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Lymphovascular Invasion Predict Recurrence in Stage I Lung Cancers. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 6:1, 43-47
CrossRef42
G. S. Patel, T. Kiuchi, K. Lawler, E. Ofo, G. O. Fruhwirth, M. Kelleher, E. Shamil, R. Zhang, P. R. Selvin, G. Santis, J. Spicer, N. Woodman, C. E. Gillett, P. R. Barber, B. Vojnovic, G. Kéri, T. Schaeffter, V. Goh, M. J. O'Doherty, P. A. Ellis, T. Ng. (2011) The challenges of integrating molecular imaging into the optimization of cancer therapy. Integrative Biology 3:6, 603
CrossRef43
Oscar Arrieta, Cynthia Villarreal-Garza, Jesús Zamora, Mónika Blake-Cerda, María D de la Mata, Diego G Zavala, Saé Muñiz-Hernández, Jaime de la Garza. (2011) Long-term survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and synchronous brain metastasis treated with whole-brain radiotherapy and thoracic chemoradiation. Radiation Oncology 6:1, 166
CrossRef44
Sandra C. Tomaszek, Dennis A. Wigle. (2011) Pretreatment Assessment for the Optimal Management of Early-Stage Lung Cancer. The Cancer Journal 17:1, 11-17
CrossRef45
Susana Cedrés Pérez, Isela Quispe, Pablo Martínez, Marina Longo, Eva Rodríguez, César Serrano, Eva Muñoz, Esther Pallisa, Enriqueta Felip. (2010) Computed tomography (CT) predicts accurately the pathologic tumour size in stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clinical and Translational Oncology 12:12, 829-835
CrossRef46
James G. Ravenel, Tan-Lucien H. Mohammed, Benjamin Movsas, Mark E. Ginsburg, Jacobo Kirsch, Feng-Ming Kong, J. Anthony Parker, Gautham P. Reddy, Kenneth E. Rosenzweig, Anthony G. Saleh. (2010) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Noninvasive Clinical Staging of Bronchogenic Carcinoma. Journal of Thoracic Imaging 25:4, W107-W111
CrossRef47
Gabriela A. D'Jaen, Liron Pantanowitz, Mark Bower, Susan Buskin, Nancy Neil, Erin M. Greco, Timothy P. Cooley, David Henry, Jonathan Stem, Bruce J. Dezube, Justin Stebbing, David M. Aboulafia. (2010) Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Associated Primary Lung Cancer in the Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: A Multi-Institutional Collaboration. Clinical Lung Cancer 11:6, 396-404
CrossRef48
Neal Navani, Stephen G. Spiro. (2010) PET scanning is important in lung cancer; but it has its limitations. Respirology 15:8, 1149-1151
CrossRef49
Jared D. Christensen, Tom V. Colby, Edward F. Patz. (2010) Correlation of [18F]-2-fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography standard uptake values with the cellular composition of stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer 116:17, 4095-4102
CrossRef50
Michael P Mac Manus, Rodney J Hicks. (2010) How can we tell if PET imaging for cancer is cost effective?. The Lancet Oncology 11:8, 711-712
CrossRef51
Saiyada N.F. Rizvi, Emile F. Comans, Ronald Boellaard, Harm van Tinteren, Otto S. Hoekstra. (2010) Two decades at the cross-roads of biology, physics and epidemiology: Lessons learned in [18F-]FDG positron emission tomography in oncology. European Journal of Cancer 46:12, 2150-2158
CrossRef52
Thomas E. Stinchcombe, Jeffrey Bogart, Dennis A. Wigle, Ramaswamy Govindan. (2010) Annual Review of Advances in Lung Cancer Clinical Research. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 5:7, 935-939
CrossRef53
Kunihiko Izuishi, Yuka Yamamoto, Takanori Sano, Ryusuke Takebayashi, Tsutomu Masaki, Yasuyuki Suzuki. (2010) Impact of 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography on the Management of Pancreatic Cancer. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 14:7, 1151-1158
CrossRef54
Francisco A Almeida, Mateen Uzbeck, David Ost. (2010) Initial evaluation of the nonsmall cell lung cancer patient: diagnosis and staging. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine 16:4, 307-314
CrossRef55
I.A. Adamietz, N. Niederle. (2010) Lungenkarzinom. Der Onkologe 16:6, 615-628
CrossRef56
Markus Dietlein, Carsten Kobe, Bernd Neumaier, Roland Ullrich. (2010) Nichtkleinzelliges Bronchialkarzinom. Onkopipeline 3:2, 99-105
CrossRef57
P. Weinmann, M. Soussan. (2010) L’imagerie hybride dans l’évaluation oncologique, anatomique et fonctionnelle: TEP-scanner. Oncologie 12:3, 219-224
CrossRef58
Emmanuel Coche, Max Lonneux, Xavier Geets. (2010) Lung cancer: morphological and functional approach to screening, staging and treatment planning. Future Oncology 6:3, 367-380
CrossRef59
Johannes Czernin, Matthias R. Benz, Martin S. Allen-Auerbach. (2010) PET/CT imaging: The incremental value of assessing the glucose metabolic phenotype and the structure of cancers in a single examination. European Journal of Radiology 73:3, 470-480
CrossRef60
S. E. H. Cameron, R. S. Andrade, S. E. Pambuccian. (2010) Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration cytology: a state of the art review. Cytopathology 21:1, 6-26
CrossRef61
Edward F. Patz, Jeremy J. Erasmus. (2010) Commentary on “Positron Emission Tomography in the Lung” 25 Years After Publication in the Inaugural Issue of the Journal of Thoracic Imaging. Journal of Thoracic Imaging 25:1, 39-40
CrossRef62
Yoji Ogawa. (2010) Integrated FDG-PET/CT in Lung Cancer. Haigan 50:6, 853-859
CrossRef63
Hisao Mizutani, Junichi Kohmoto, Kouichi Kayano. (2010) A case of supraclavicular schwannoma requiring differentiation from lymph node metastasis by FDG-PFT/CT before lung cancer surgery. The Journal of the Japanese Association for Chest Surgery 24:5, 818-822
CrossRef64
Mark Levine, Jim Julian. (2009) Imaging: PET–CT imaging in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 6:11, 619-620
CrossRef65
(2009) Lung-Cancer Staging with PET–CT. New England Journal of Medicine 361:16, 1606-1608
Full Text
- Letters
