Impact on patientmanagement of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)used for cancer diagnosis

Analysis ofdata from the national oncologic PET registry

Rathan M. Subramaniam, Anthony F. Shields, Archana Sachedina, Lucy Hanna, Fenghai Duan, Barry A. Siegel, Bruce E. Hillner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction. We assessed the impact of [18F]-fluoro de oxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) on intended management of patients in the National On cologic PET Registry (NOPR)for three different diagnostic indications: (a) determining whether a suspicious lesionis cancer (Dx), (b)detecting an unknown primary tumor site when there is confirmed or strongly suspected metastatic disease (cancer of unknown primary origin [CUP]), and(c) detectinga primary tumor sitewhen there is a presumed paraneo plastic syndrome (PNS). Methods.We reviewed a sample of randomly selected reports of NOPR subjects who underwent PET for Dx and CUPand all reports for PNS to find subjects foranalysis. For these studies, we evaluated the impact of PET on referring physicians’ intended management, based on their management plans reported before and after PET. Results. Intended management was changed more frequently in the CUP group (43.1%) than in the Dx (23.9%) and PNS (25.4%) groups (CUP vs. Dx, p < .0001; PNS vs. Dx, p < .0001; CUP vs. PNS, p < .0002). Referring physicians reported that, in light of PET results, they were able to avoid further testing in approximately three-fourths of patients (71.8%–74.6%). At the time when the post-PET forms were completed, biopsies of suspicious sites had been performed in 21.2%, 32.4%, and 23.2%, respectively, of Dx, CUP, and PNS cases. Conclusion. Our analysis of NOPR data shows that PET appears to have a substantial impact on intended management when used for three common diagnostic indications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1079-1084
Number of pages6
JournalOncologist
Volume21
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2016

Fingerprint

Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Positron-Emission Tomography
Registries
Plastics
Neoplasms
Unknown Primary Neoplasms
Physicians
Biopsy

Keywords

  • Cancer diagnosis
  • Cancer of unknown primary origin
  • National Oncologic PET Registry
  • Paraneoplastic syndrome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Impact on patientmanagement of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)used for cancer diagnosis : Analysis ofdata from the national oncologic PET registry. / Subramaniam, Rathan M.; Shields, Anthony F.; Sachedina, Archana; Hanna, Lucy; Duan, Fenghai; Siegel, Barry A.; Hillner, Bruce E.

In: Oncologist, Vol. 21, No. 9, 01.09.2016, p. 1079-1084.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Subramaniam, Rathan M. ; Shields, Anthony F. ; Sachedina, Archana ; Hanna, Lucy ; Duan, Fenghai ; Siegel, Barry A. ; Hillner, Bruce E. / Impact on patientmanagement of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)used for cancer diagnosis : Analysis ofdata from the national oncologic PET registry. In: Oncologist. 2016 ; Vol. 21, No. 9. pp. 1079-1084.
@article{a9d44744951a4fff85a78e700d6e2577,
title = "Impact on patientmanagement of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)used for cancer diagnosis: Analysis ofdata from the national oncologic PET registry",
abstract = "Introduction. We assessed the impact of [18F]-fluoro de oxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) on intended management of patients in the National On cologic PET Registry (NOPR)for three different diagnostic indications: (a) determining whether a suspicious lesionis cancer (Dx), (b)detecting an unknown primary tumor site when there is confirmed or strongly suspected metastatic disease (cancer of unknown primary origin [CUP]), and(c) detectinga primary tumor sitewhen there is a presumed paraneo plastic syndrome (PNS). Methods.We reviewed a sample of randomly selected reports of NOPR subjects who underwent PET for Dx and CUPand all reports for PNS to find subjects foranalysis. For these studies, we evaluated the impact of PET on referring physicians’ intended management, based on their management plans reported before and after PET. Results. Intended management was changed more frequently in the CUP group (43.1{\%}) than in the Dx (23.9{\%}) and PNS (25.4{\%}) groups (CUP vs. Dx, p < .0001; PNS vs. Dx, p < .0001; CUP vs. PNS, p < .0002). Referring physicians reported that, in light of PET results, they were able to avoid further testing in approximately three-fourths of patients (71.8{\%}–74.6{\%}). At the time when the post-PET forms were completed, biopsies of suspicious sites had been performed in 21.2{\%}, 32.4{\%}, and 23.2{\%}, respectively, of Dx, CUP, and PNS cases. Conclusion. Our analysis of NOPR data shows that PET appears to have a substantial impact on intended management when used for three common diagnostic indications.",
keywords = "Cancer diagnosis, Cancer of unknown primary origin, National Oncologic PET Registry, Paraneoplastic syndrome",
author = "Subramaniam, {Rathan M.} and Shields, {Anthony F.} and Archana Sachedina and Lucy Hanna and Fenghai Duan and Siegel, {Barry A.} and Hillner, {Bruce E.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0364",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "1079--1084",
journal = "Oncologist",
issn = "1083-7159",
publisher = "AlphaMed Press",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact on patientmanagement of [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (PET)used for cancer diagnosis

T2 - Analysis ofdata from the national oncologic PET registry

AU - Subramaniam, Rathan M.

AU - Shields, Anthony F.

AU - Sachedina, Archana

AU - Hanna, Lucy

AU - Duan, Fenghai

AU - Siegel, Barry A.

AU - Hillner, Bruce E.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - Introduction. We assessed the impact of [18F]-fluoro de oxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) on intended management of patients in the National On cologic PET Registry (NOPR)for three different diagnostic indications: (a) determining whether a suspicious lesionis cancer (Dx), (b)detecting an unknown primary tumor site when there is confirmed or strongly suspected metastatic disease (cancer of unknown primary origin [CUP]), and(c) detectinga primary tumor sitewhen there is a presumed paraneo plastic syndrome (PNS). Methods.We reviewed a sample of randomly selected reports of NOPR subjects who underwent PET for Dx and CUPand all reports for PNS to find subjects foranalysis. For these studies, we evaluated the impact of PET on referring physicians’ intended management, based on their management plans reported before and after PET. Results. Intended management was changed more frequently in the CUP group (43.1%) than in the Dx (23.9%) and PNS (25.4%) groups (CUP vs. Dx, p < .0001; PNS vs. Dx, p < .0001; CUP vs. PNS, p < .0002). Referring physicians reported that, in light of PET results, they were able to avoid further testing in approximately three-fourths of patients (71.8%–74.6%). At the time when the post-PET forms were completed, biopsies of suspicious sites had been performed in 21.2%, 32.4%, and 23.2%, respectively, of Dx, CUP, and PNS cases. Conclusion. Our analysis of NOPR data shows that PET appears to have a substantial impact on intended management when used for three common diagnostic indications.

AB - Introduction. We assessed the impact of [18F]-fluoro de oxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) on intended management of patients in the National On cologic PET Registry (NOPR)for three different diagnostic indications: (a) determining whether a suspicious lesionis cancer (Dx), (b)detecting an unknown primary tumor site when there is confirmed or strongly suspected metastatic disease (cancer of unknown primary origin [CUP]), and(c) detectinga primary tumor sitewhen there is a presumed paraneo plastic syndrome (PNS). Methods.We reviewed a sample of randomly selected reports of NOPR subjects who underwent PET for Dx and CUPand all reports for PNS to find subjects foranalysis. For these studies, we evaluated the impact of PET on referring physicians’ intended management, based on their management plans reported before and after PET. Results. Intended management was changed more frequently in the CUP group (43.1%) than in the Dx (23.9%) and PNS (25.4%) groups (CUP vs. Dx, p < .0001; PNS vs. Dx, p < .0001; CUP vs. PNS, p < .0002). Referring physicians reported that, in light of PET results, they were able to avoid further testing in approximately three-fourths of patients (71.8%–74.6%). At the time when the post-PET forms were completed, biopsies of suspicious sites had been performed in 21.2%, 32.4%, and 23.2%, respectively, of Dx, CUP, and PNS cases. Conclusion. Our analysis of NOPR data shows that PET appears to have a substantial impact on intended management when used for three common diagnostic indications.

KW - Cancer diagnosis

KW - Cancer of unknown primary origin

KW - National Oncologic PET Registry

KW - Paraneoplastic syndrome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84987984629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84987984629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0364

DO - 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0364

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 1079

EP - 1084

JO - Oncologist

JF - Oncologist

SN - 1083-7159

IS - 9

ER -