Published in

American Society of Clinical Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15_suppl(30), p. 6049-6049, 2012

DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.6049

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the diagnosis of recurrent cancer (PETREC): A multicenter, prospective cohort study.

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

6049 Background: The clinical utility of PET/CT in patients with suspected cancer recurrence remains unclear. The aim of this multi-center, prospective, comparative effectiveness study is to assess the impact of PET/CT on clinical management of patients with suspected cancer recurrence. Methods: Patients were eligible if cancer recurrence (non-small cell lung, breast, head and neck, ovarian, esophageal, Hodgkin’s or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) was clinically suspected, and if conventional imaging (e.g. X-ray, ultrasound, CT, or MRI) was non-diagnostic. As a pre-requisite to PET/CT booking, clinicians were asked at enrolment to indicate their planned management if PET/CT were not available. Patients then underwent 18FDG-PET/CT. Clinicians were then asked to indicate their management plan based on PET/CT findings. Patients were followed up once at 3 months. The primary outcome was change in planned management after PET/CT and was assessed independently and in duplicate by external outcome adjudicators using all available source documents. Results: 101 patients (mean age 64 y, 45% male, median 1.3 y since last treatment) were enrolled from 4 centers in Ontario, Canada between April 2009 and June 2011. Distribution of tumor types was: non-small cell lung (55%), breast (19%), ovarian (10%), esophageal (6%), lymphoma (6%), head and neck (4%). 8 patients did not complete the study (non-adherence to protocol, 2; death, 5; disease progression prior to PET/CT, 1), of whom 2 did not receive PET/CT. PET/CT changed planned management in 52 (53%) patients (Table). At 3 months, planned management was carried out in 46/52 (88%) patients. Conclusions: In patients with suspected cancer recurrence, PET/CT changes planned management from non-treatment to treatment for approximately 1 in every 3 patients (“number needed to scan” = 3) and contributes importantly to clinical management. [Table: see text]