Journals / Eurasian Journal of Pulmonology / 2020 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1

Retrospective analysis of false positive ratio of our patients with lung cancer at positron emission tomography‑CT screen

Pages
23–28
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

We calculated the positive predictive value as 73.5% and the negative predictive value as 61%.CONCLUSION: As a result, considering the common inflammatory and granulomatous diseases seen in our country, we concluded that benign diseases should be considered before malignancy in SUVmax value below 6.6.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: In lung cancer, staging is necessary to give the best treatment to the patient and to estimate the best prognosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to compare the pathology results of the lung masses and mediastinal lymph nodes and to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity values of positron emission tomography–computerized tomography (PET‑CT) and to determine the maximalthreshold of maximum standardized uptake volume (SUVmax).MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the PET‑CT SUVmax values and pathology results of the patients who had a mass, mediastinal lymph node, or scalene lymph node in our patients between 2016 and 2018.RESULTS: Fifty‑one people and 75 pathology materials were included in our study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We calculated the positive predictive value as 73.5% and the negative predictive value as 61%.CONCLUSION: As a result, considering the common inflammatory and granulomatous diseases seen in our country, we concluded that benign diseases should be considered before malignancy in SUVmax value below 6.6.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In lung cancer, staging is necessary to give the best treatment to the patient and to estimate the best prognosis. The aim of this study was to compare the pathology results of the lung masses and mediastinal lymph nodes and to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity values of positron emission tomography–computerized tomography (PET‑CT) and to determine the maximalthreshold of maximum standardized uptake volume (SUVmax).MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the PET‑CT SUVmax values and pathology results of the patients who had a mass, mediastinal lymph node, or scalene lymph node in our patients between 2016 and 2018.RESULTS: Fifty‑one people and 75 pathology materials were included in our study. We used the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to determine the cutoff value for SUVmax value and calculated the cutoff value as 6.65. In our study, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated as 63% and 71%, respectively. We calculated the positive predictive value as 73.5% and the negative predictive value as 61%.CONCLUSION: As a result, considering the common inflammatory and granulomatous diseases seen in our country, we concluded that benign diseases should be considered before malignancy in SUVmax value below 6.6. We continue to add new patients and new data to our study to find the most appropriate threshold of SUVmax value for the health values of our country

🔖

Cite This Article

MİRİCİ, N. A., KAPICIBASI, H. O., Mutlu, P., ALKAN, Ş. A., YUKSEL, B., BAKAR, Ç. (2022). Retrospective analysis of false positive ratio of our patients with lung cancer at positron emission tomography‑CT screen. Eurasian Journal of Pulmonology, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1, 23–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/509592

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Globocan 2012: estimated Cancer Incidence Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012‑who. Available from: http:// globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx?cancer=lung. [Last accessed on 2020 Jan 08]
  2. TUIK Death Reason Statistics; 2014. Available from: http://www. tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=18855. [Last accessed on 2020 Jan 08]
  3. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ, et al. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43‑66
  4. Mazzone P, Obuchowski N, Mekhail T, Meziane M, Ahmad M. Lung cancer screening: Is it time for a change in policy? Cleve Clin J Med 2007;74:441‑8
  5. Steinert HC. PET and PET‑CT of lung cancer. In: Juweid M. Hoekstra O, editors. Positron Emission Tomography. Methods in Molecular Biology (Methods and Protocols). Vol
  6. Humana Press; 2011. Available from: https://link.springer.com/protocol /10.1007%2F978‑1‑61779‑062‑1_3. [Last accessed on 2020 Jan 08]
  7. Roberts PF, Follette DM, von Haag D, Park JA, Valk PE, Pounds TR, et al. Factors associated with false‑positive staging of lung cancer by positron emission tomography. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;70:1154‑9
  8. Tuberculosis Surveillance and Monitoring in Europe; 2016. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0005/310100/TB‑surveillance‑report‑2016‑Turkey.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Jan 08]
  9. Public Health Agencies Cancer Statistics for Turkey; 2017. Available from: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/depo/birimler/ kanser‑db/istatistik/2014‑RAPOR._uzuuun.pdf. [Last accessed on 2020 Jan 08]
  10. Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Available from: https:// www.cancercenter.com/lung‑cancer/pet‑ct‑scan/. [Last accessed on 2020 Jan 08]
  11. Al‑Jahdali H, Khan AN, Loutfi S, Al‑Harbi AS. Guidelines for the role of FDG‑PET/CT in lung cancer management. J Infect Public Health 2012;5 Suppl 1:S35‑40
  12. Silvestri GA, Gould MK, Margolis ML, Tanoue LT, McCrory D, Toloza E, et al. Noninvasive staging of non‑small cell lung cancer: ACCP evidenced‑based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 2007;132:178S‑201S
  13. Sathekge MM, Maes A, Pottel H, Stoltz A, van de Wiele C. Dual time‑point FDG PET‑CT for differentiating benign from malignant solitary pulmonary nodules in a TB endemic area. S Afr Med J 2010;100:598‑601
  14. Kang F, Wang S, Tian F, Zhao M, Zhang M, Wang Z, et al. Comparing the diagnostic potential of 68Ga‑alfatide II and 18F‑FDG in differentiating between non‑small cell lung cancer and tuberculosis. J Nucl Med 2016;57:672‑7.