Meta-Analysis to Determine the Diagnostic Value of 2-18Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography in Assessing Residual Tumors after Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Seminoma

.
DOI: 10.4236/oju.2011.13011   PDF   HTML     2,970 Downloads   5,667 Views   Citations

Abstract

Background: A meta-analysis was performed to determine the value of 2-18fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for assessing viable tumor residuals after chemotherapy in patients with pure seminoma. Materials and methods: This review included five studies published between 1999 and 2010 with a total of 130 patients who underwent both computed tomography (CT) and FDG-PET scanning for residual tumor detection after systemic therapy. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET and CT (tumor size ≤ or > 3 cm) in identifying vital tumor tissue. Results: On the average, FDG-PET had higher specificity (92% vs. 59%) and sensitivity (72% vs. 63%) as well as a higher positive predictive value (PPV) than the solely size-based CT assessment of residual tumors (70% vs. 28%). PEt also tended to have a higher negative predictive value (93% vs. 86%). Conclusion: The present evaluation of currently available data indicates that FDG-PET is superior to CT in detecting viable tumor residuals after chemotherapy in patients with metastatic seminoma. Its application can thus be recommended.

Share and Cite:

J. Mueller, T. Schnoeller, F. Zengerling, S. Waalkes, A. Ghazal, F. Jentzmik, M. Schrader and A. Schrader, "Meta-Analysis to Determine the Diagnostic Value of 2-18Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography in Assessing Residual Tumors after Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Seminoma," Open Journal of Urology, Vol. 1 No. 3, 2011, pp. 50-55. doi: 10.4236/oju.2011.13011.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] K. A. McGlynn, S. S. Devesa, A. J. Sigurdson, L. M. Brown, L. Tsao and R. E. Tarone, “Trends in the Incidence of Testicular Germ Cell Tumors in the United States,” Cancer, Vol. 97, No. 1, 2003, pp. 63-70. doi:10.1002/cncr.11054
[2] S. Krege, J. Beyer, R. Souchon, et al., “European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ Cell Cancer: A Report of the Second Meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG): Part I,” European Urology, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2008, pp. 478-496. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.024
[3] S. Krege, J. Beyer, R. Souchon, et al., “European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ Cell Cancer: A Report of the Second Meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG): Part II,” European Urology, Vol. 53, No. 3, 2008, pp. 497-513. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.025
[4] A. Flechon, E. Bompas, P. Biron and J. P. Droz, “Management of Post-Chemotherapy Residual Masses in Advanced Seminoma,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 168, No. 5, 2002, pp. 1975-1979. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64275-9
[5] W. F. Hendry, A. R. Norman, D. P. Dearnaley, et al., “Metastatic Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors of the Testis: Results of Elective and Salvage Surgery for Patients with Residual Retroperitoneal Masses,” Cancer, Vol. 94, No. 6, 2002, pp. 1668-1676. doi:10.1002/cncr.10440
[6] H. W. Herr, “Does Necrosis on Frozen-Section Analysis of a Mass after Chemotherapy Justify a Limited Retroperitoneal Resection in Patients with Advanced Testis Cancer?” British Journal of Urology, Vol. 80, No. 4, 1997, pp. 653-657.
[7] H. S. Puc, R. Heelan, M. Mazumdar, et al., “Management of Residual Mass in Advanced Seminoma: Results and Recommendations from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1996, pp. 454-460.
[8] S. F. Willis, M. Winkler, P. Savage, M. J. Seckl and T. J. Christmas, “Repeat Retroperitoneal Lymph-Node Dissection after Chemotherapy for Metastatic Testicular Germ Cell Tumour,” British Journal of Urology International, Vol. 100, No. 4, 2007, pp. 809-812. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07087.x
[9] A. A. Mosharafa, R. S. Foster, B. C. Leibovich, R. Bihrle, C. Johnson and J. P. Donohue, “Is Post-Chemotherapy Resection of Seminomatous Elements Associated with Higher Acute Morbidity?” Journal of Urology, Vol. 169, No. 6, 2003, pp. 2126-2128. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000060121.33899.4b
[10] P. Albers, L. Weissbach, S. Krege, et al., “Prediction of Necrosis after Chemotherapy of Advanced Germ Cell Tumors: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Trial of the German Testicular Cancer Study Group,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 171, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1835-1838. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000119121.36427.09
[11] E. W. Steyerberg, A. Gerl, S. D. Fossa, et al., “Validity of Predictions of Residual Retroperitoneal Mass Histology in Nonseminomatous Testicular Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1998, pp. 269-274.
[12] S. N. Reske and J. Kotzerke, “FDG-PET for Clinical Use. Results of the 3rd German Interdisciplinary Consensus Conference, ‘Onko-PET III’, 21 July and 19 September 2000,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine, Vol. 28, No. 11, 2001, pp. 1707-1723. doi:10.1007/s002590100626
[13] A. W. Stephens, R. Gonin, G. D. Hutchins and L. H. Einhorn, “Positron Emission Tomography Evaluation of Residual Radiographic Abnormalities in Postchemotherapy Germ Cell Tumor Patients,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1996, pp. 1637-1641.
[14] K. Oechsle, M. Hartmann, W. Brenner, et al., “[18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography in Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors after Chemotherapy: The German Multicenter Positron Emission Tomography Study Group,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 26, No. 36, 2008, pp. 5930-5935. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.17.1157
[15] S. N. Reske, “PET and Restaging of Malignant Lymphoma Including Residual Masses and Relapse,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Vol. 30, Supplement 1, 2003, pp. 589-596. doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1167-4
[16] G. Jerusalem, Y. Beguin, M. F. Fassotte, et al., “Whole- Body Positron Emission Tomography Using 18f-Fluorodeoxyglucose for Posttreatment Evaluation in Hodgkin’s Disease and Non-hodgkin’s Lymphoma Has Higher Diagnostic and Prognostic Value than Classical Computed Tomography Scan Imaging,” Blood, Vol. 94, No. 2, 1999, pp. 429-433.
[17] M. de Wit, D. Bumann, W. Beyer, K. Herbst, M. Clausen and D. K. Hossfeld, “Whole-Body Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for Diagnosis of Residual Mass in Patients with Lymphoma,” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 8, Supplement 1, 1997, pp. S57-S60. doi:10.1023/A:1008253917337
[18] N. C. Nguyen, B. T. Chaar and M. M. Osman, “Prevalence and Patterns of Soft Tissue Metastasis: Detection with True Whole-Body F-18 FDG PET/CT,” BMC Medical Imaging, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2007, pp. 1-8. doi:10.1186/1471-2342-7-8
[19] A. Becherer, M. De Santis, G. Karanikas, et al., “FDG PET is Superior to CT in the Prediction of Viable Tumour in Post-Chemotherapy Seminoma Residuals,” European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2005, pp. 284-288. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.012
[20] M. De Santis, C. Bokemeyer, A. Becherer, et al., “Predictive Impact of 2-18Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography for Residual Postchemotherapy Masses in Patients with Bulky Seminoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 17, 2001, pp. 3740-3744.
[21] M. De Santis, A. Becherer, C. Bokemeyer, et al., “2-18 Fluoro-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography is a Reliable Predictor for Viable Tumor in Postchemotherapy Seminoma: An Update of the Prospective Multicentric SEMPET Trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 22, No. 6, 2004, pp. 1034-1039. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.07.188
[22] S. Hinz, M. Schrader, C. Kempkensteffen, et al., “The Role of Positron Emission Tomography in the Evaluation of Residual Masses after Chemotherapy for Advanced Stage Seminoma,” Journal of Urology, Vol. 179, No. 3, 2008, pp. 936-940. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.10.054
[23] K. N. Ganjoo, R. J. Chan, M. Sharma and L. H. Einhorn, “Positron Emission Tomography Scans in the Evaluation of Postchemotherapy Residual Masses in Patients with Seminoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 17, No. 11, 1999, pp. 3457-3460.
[24] A. Horwich, B. Paluchowska, A. Norman, et al., “Residual Mass Following Chemotherapy of Seminoma,” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1997, pp. 37-40. doi:10.1023/A:1008241904019
[25] G. M. Duchesne, S. P. Stenning, N. Aass, et al., “Radiotherapy after Chemotherapy for Metastatic Seminoma— A Diminishing Role. MRC Testicular Tumour Working Party,” European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 33, No. 6, 1997, pp. 829-835. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(97)00033-6
[26] S. D. Fossa, R. T. Oliver, S. P. Stenning, et al., “Prognostic Factors for Patients with Advanced Seminoma Treated with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy,” European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 33, No. 9, 1997, pp. 1380-1387. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(96)00425-X
[27] R. Ravi, J. Ong, R. T. Oliver, D. F. Badenoch, C. G. Fowler and W. F. Hendry, “The Management of Residual Masses after Chemotherapy in Metastatic Seminoma,” British Journal of Urology International, Vol. 83, No. 6, 1999, pp. 649-653. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00974.x
[28] A. Heidenreich, D. Thuer and S. Polyakov, “Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection in Advanced Germ Cell Tumours of the Testis,” European Urology, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2008, pp. 260-272. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.033
[29] M. Bachner, P. Zucali, A. Horwich, et al., “2-18Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG PET) for Postchemotherapy Residual: A Retrospective Validation of the SEMPET Trial,” Annals of Oncology, Published Online, 2 April 2011.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.