• Hilmar Kuehl, Sandra Rosenbaum-Krumme, Patrick Veit-Haibach, Hrvoje Stergar, Michael Forsting, Andreas Bockisch, and Gerald Antoch.
• Department for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstr, Essen, Germany. hilmar.kuehl@uk-essen.de
• Nucl Med Commun. 2008 Jul 1; 29 (7): 599-606.

ObjectiveThe correct staging of patients with malignant liver tumors before radio-frequency ablation (RFA) is mandatory for successful treatment. Our study aimed to compare the influence on decision to perform RFA of whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/computed tomography (CT) with whole-body contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) and PET alone.MethodsFifty-eight patients with known hepatic malignancies (23, liver metastases 35) received FDG-PET/CT before RFA planned with curative intention. CT and PET data were each read separately, PET/CT fusion data were read in consensus afterward by a third reader group. The diagnostic accuracy of CE-CT, PET alone, and PET/CT to identify patients eligible for RFA was compared and the impact on decision was analyzed. The McNemar test with Bonferroni correction was used to test for significant differences.ResultsThe accuracy and sensitivity to detect correctly intrahepatic and extrahepatic tumor were 94 and 97% for CT, 75 and 54% for PET, and 97 and 95% for PET/CT. The differences between CT and PET, as well as between PET/CT and PET, were statistically significant, but there was no significant difference between PET/CT and CT alone (P>0.65). PET alone, CE-CT, and PET/CT correctly identified 32, 55, and 57 patients, respectively. Again, PET/CT showed no significant advantage over CE-CT. Both imaging methods performed significantly better than PET alone (P<0.0001). Forty-three (74%) of 58 patients underwent RFA with curative intention.ConclusionWhole-body imaging changed patient management in 26% of the patients planned for curative intended RFA, yet there was no significant difference between CE-CT and PET/CT.

23 keywords...

hide…