Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
How can we use positron emission tomography/computed tomography more accurately for characterization of asbestos-related pleural thickening?
Simsek, F Selcuk; Cakmak, Muharrem; Kuslu, Duygu; Balci, Tansel A; In, Erdal; Ozercan, Ibrahim H; Narin, Yavuz.
Afiliação
  • Simsek FS; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.
  • Cakmak M; Department of Thoracic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey.
  • Kuslu D; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey.
  • Balci TA; Department of Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey.
  • In E; Department of Pulmonology, Faculty of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey.
  • Ozercan IH; Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey.
  • Narin Y; Department of Nuclear Medicine, Elazig Medical Park Hospital, Elazig, Turkey.
Arch Med Sci ; 19(2): 385-391, 2023.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37034512
Introduction: There is no consensus about the standardized uptake value maximum (SUVmax) cut-off value to characterize pleural thickening worldwide. Sometimes, this causes unnecessary invasive diagnostic procedures. Our first aim is to determine a cut-off value for SUVmax. Secondly, we try to answer the following question: If we use this cut-off value together with morphological parameters, can we differentiate benign thickening from malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) more accurately? Material and methods: Thirty-seven patients who underwent 2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) before pleural biopsy were included the study. All of patients had histopathologically proven primary pleural disease. Their [18F]FDG-PET/CT imaging reports were re-assessed. If a patient's SUVmax or size of the thickening was not mentioned in the report, we calculated it with their [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Results: Age, pleural effusion, size, and SUVmax were found to have a relationship with MPM. We found the size > 14 mm, and SUVmax > 4.0 as cut-off values for MPM. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for size > 14 mm were found to be 86.4%, 85.2%, 82.6%, 88.5%, respectively. For SUVmax > 4.0, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV were 90.9%, 87.0%, 85.1%, 92.2%, respectively. Conclusions: If a patient has SUVmax > 4.0 and/or size > 14 mm, the risk of MPM is high. These patients should undergo biopsy. If a patient's SUVmax < 4.0, size < 14 mm and does not have pleural effusion, he/she has low risk for MPM. These patients can undergo the follow-up. If a patient's SUVmax < 4, size < 14, and has pleural effusion the MPM risk is approximately 4%. These patients can undergo biopsy/cytology/follow-up. Novel studies are needed for these patients.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article