18F-FDG PET/CT versus anatomic imaging for evaluating disease extent and clinical trial eligibility in Erdheim-Chester disease: results from 50 patients in a registry study

Objectives The aim of this study was to [1] characterize distribution of Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) by 18 F-FDG PET/CT and [2] determine the utility of metabolic ( 18 F-FDG PET/CT) imaging versus anatomic imaging (CT or MRI) in evaluating ECD patients for clinical trial eligibility. Methods 18 F-...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2021-04, Vol.48 (4), p.1154-1165
Hauptverfasser: Kirchner, Julian, Hatzoglou, Vaios, Buthorn, Justin B., Bossert, Dana, Sigler, Allison M., Reiner, Anne S., Ulaner, Gary A., Diamond, Eli L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives The aim of this study was to [1] characterize distribution of Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) by 18 F-FDG PET/CT and [2] determine the utility of metabolic ( 18 F-FDG PET/CT) imaging versus anatomic imaging (CT or MRI) in evaluating ECD patients for clinical trial eligibility. Methods 18 F-FDG PET/CT and corresponding CT or MRI studies for ECD patients enrolled in a prospective registry study were reviewed. Sites of disease were classified as [1] detectable by 18 F-FDG PET only, CT/MRI only, or both and as [2] measurable by modified PERCIST (mPERCIST) only, RECIST only, or both. Descriptive analysis was performed and paired t test for between-group comparisons. Results Fifty patients were included (mean age 51.5 years; range 18–70 years). Three hundred thirty-three disease sites were detected among all imaging modalities, 188 (56%) by both 18 F-FDG PET and CT/MRI, 67 (20%) by 18 F-FDG PET only, 75 (23%) by MRI brain only, and 3 (1%) by CT only. Of 178 disease sites measurable by mPERCIST or RECIST, 40 (22%) were measurable by both criteria, 136 (76%) by mPERCIST only, and 2 (1%) by RECIST only. On the patient level, 17 (34%) had mPERCIST and RECIST measurable disease, 30 (60%) had mPERCIST measurable disease only, and 0 had RECIST measurable disease only ( p  
ISSN:1619-7070
1619-7089
DOI:10.1007/s00259-020-05047-8