Loading…

Ratio of Mediastinal Lymph Node SUV to Primary Tumor SUV in 18F-FDG PET/CT for Nodal Staging in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose Following determination of the maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the mediastinal lymph nodes (SUV-LN) and of the primary tumor (SUV-T) on 18 F-FDG PET/CT in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the aim of the study was to determine the value of the SUV-LN/SUV-T rati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2017, 51(2), , pp.140-146
Main Authors: Cho, Jaehyuk, Choe, Jae Gol, Pahk, Kisoo, Choi, Sunju, Kwon, Hye Ryeong, Eo, Jae Seon, Seo, Hyo Jung, Kim, Chulhan, Kim, Sungeun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Following determination of the maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the mediastinal lymph nodes (SUV-LN) and of the primary tumor (SUV-T) on 18 F-FDG PET/CT in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the aim of the study was to determine the value of the SUV-LN/SUV-T ratio in lymph node staging in comparison with that of SUV-LN. Methods We retrospectively reviewed a total of 289 mediastinal lymph node stations from 98 patients with NSCLC who were examined preoperatively for staging and subsequently underwent pathologic studies of the mediastinal lymph nodes. We determined SUV-LN and SUV-R for each lymph node station on 18 F-FDG PET/CT and then classified each station into one of three groups based on SUV-T (low, medium and high SUV-T groups). Diagnostic performance was assessed based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and the optimal cut-off values that would best discriminate metastatic from benign lymph nodes were determined for each method. Results The average of SUV-R of malignant lymph nodes was significantly higher than that of benign lymph nodes (0.79 ± 0.45 vs. 0.36 ± 0.23, P  
ISSN:1869-3474
1869-3482
DOI:10.1007/s13139-016-0447-4