Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2019 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6

The role and effect of FDG-PET/CT on patient management and restaging of bladder carcinoma

Pages
423–430
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addi - tion, the use of FDG-PET/CT during the restaging process contributes to the management of maximum number of patients

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare the diagnostic role of Florine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in the restaging of bladder cancer with other radio - logical methods and to determine its effect on the treatment management of patients with bladder cancer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods: A total of 83 patients who showed suspicious lesions with radiologic methods and FDG-PET/CT images were enrolled in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addi - tion, the use of FDG-PET/CT during the restaging process contributes to the management of maximum number of patients
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To compare the diagnostic role of Florine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in the restaging of bladder cancer with other radio - logical methods and to determine its effect on the treatment management of patients with bladder cancer. Material and methods: A total of 83 patients who showed suspicious lesions with radiologic methods and FDG-PET/CT images were enrolled in the study. Positive lesion sites were detected and compared in all imaging modalities. Positive lesions were confirmed by biopsy or serial radiological imaging. Fur - thermore, the rate of change of the management and treatment modalities of patients after FDG-PET/CT were noted. Results: The most frequent metastasis was observed in lymphatic localizations in all imaging methods. Lymph node metastases was detected with FDG-PET/CT in 37/83 patients, with computed tomography in 28/80 patients, and with magnetic resonance imaging in 6/19 patients. Lymph node metastasis was detected most commonly in the pelvic region with all modalities. Following lymphatic localization in FDG-PET/CT and CT, metastases were found most frequently in the lung and bone regions. FDG-PET/ CT also revealed 8 of the 12 local lesions that were detected by radiological methods and showed ad - ditional lesions in four patients that could not be demonstrated by radiological methods. FDG-PET/CT changed the treatment approaches in 34.9% (29/83) of patients. In 16 patients, it caused upstaging and commencement of advanced treatment methods. In 13 patients, malignancy was excluded in suspicious lesions and unnecessary advanced examination and treatment were avoided. FDG-PET/CT also caused three radical cystectomies, one partial cystectomy, and one urethrectomy in patients who had not under- gone any operational procedure previously. Conclusion: Despite physiological urinary tract uptake, FDG-PET/CT is superior to other imaging mo - dalities not only in distant localizations but also in evaluating pelvic lesions and lymph nodes. In addi - tion, the use of FDG-PET/CT during the restaging process contributes to the management of maximum number of patients

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜNEY, İ. B., KÜÇÜKER, K. A., İZOL, V., KİBAR, M. (2019). The role and effect of FDG-PET/CT on patient management and restaging of bladder carcinoma. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 6, 423–430. https://ajindex.com/articles/417623

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Can- cer J Clin 2017
  2. [CrossRef] 2. PDQ® Adult Treatment Editorial Board. PDQ Bladder Cancer Treatment. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Updated. Available at: https://www.cancer.gov/types/blad- der/patient/bladder-treatment-pdq. Accessed. 3. Kantor AF, Hartge P, Hoover RN, Fraumeni JF. Epidemiological characteristics of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the bladder. Cancer Res 1988
  3. Carroll PR. Urothelial carcinoma: cancers of the bladder, ureter, & renal pelvis. Smith and Tanagho's General Urology 2012
  4. Babjuk M, Burger M, Zigeuner R, Shariat SF, van Rhijn BW, Compérat E, et al. EAU guidelines on non–muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: update 2013. Eur Urol 2013
  5. [CrossRef] 6. Chang SS, Bochner BH, Chou R, Dreicer R, Kamat AM, Lerner SP, et al. Treatment of non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer: AUA/ ASCO/ASTRO/SUO guideline. J Urol 2017
  6. [CrossRef] 7. Milowsky MI, Rumble RB, Lee CT. Guideline on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer (European Association of Urology guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical prac- tice guideline endorsement summary. J Oncol Pract 2016
  7. [CrossRef] 8. Witjes JA, Compérat E, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Gakis G, Lebret T, et al. EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2013 guidelines. Eur Urol 2014
  8. [CrossRef] 9. Kim JK, Park SY, Ahn HJ, Kim CS, Cho KS. Bladder cancer: analysis of multi–detector row helical CT enhancement pattern and accuracy in tumor detection and perivesical staging. Radiol- ogy 2004
  9. [CrossRef] 10. Baltaci S, Resorlu B, Yagcı C, Turkolmez K, Gogus C, Beduk Y. Computerized tomography for detecting perivesical infiltration and lymph node metastasis in invasive bladder carcinoma. Urol Int 2008
  10. [CrossRef] 11. Oz II, Altinbas NK, Serifoglu I, Oz EB, Yagci C. The Role of Com- puterized Tomography in the Assessment of Perivesical Invasion in Bladder Cancer. Pol J Radiol 2016
  11. [CrossRef] 12. Rajesh A, Sokhi HK, Fung R, Mulcahy KA, Bankart MJG. Blad- der cancer: evaluation of staging accuracy using dynamic MRI. Clin Radiol 2011
  12. [CrossRef] 13. Tekes A, Kamel I, Imam K, Szarf G, Schoenberg M, Nasir K et al. Dynamic MRI of bladder cancer: evaluation of staging accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005
  13. [CrossRef] 14. Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov