FDG PET is superior to CT in the prediction of viable tumour in post-chemotherapy seminoma residuals

Successful Resection of Mediastinal Seminoma Evaluated the Response to Induction Chemotherapy with Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography

“…2) Recently, FDG-PET is used as an estimating device for viable residual lesions in seminoma patients after chemotherapy. 3,4) In this patient, FDG-PET was performed before and after chemotherapy. Although the size of the tumor was reduced to less than 3 cm, abnormal uptake of FDG persisted.…”

Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET in Patients with Testicular Cancer: a Meta-analysis

“…A second scan of the suspicious region after showing a wash-out bladder can also differentiate the tumor and urinary activity. Moreover, attenuation correction combined with iterative reconstruction algorithms help to differentiate small structures from bladder activity (Becherer et al, 2005).…”

“…And another possible reason for false-positive is nonspecific inflammatory processes after chemotherapy Tsatalpas et al, 2002;Albers et al, 2004;Johns Putra et al, 2004). In this regard, it might be of principal importance that we should do the examination before chemotherapy or have an interval of at least 4 weeks after chemotherapy (De Santis et al, 2004;Becherer et al, 2005). Moreover, other imaging methods, such as CT, MRI, combined with FDG-PET can help to avoid the false-positive findings.…”

“…Ultimately, 21 studies were excluded for undesirable article types (n=21), not written in English (n=6), and insufficient data (n=4), letter (n=2), case report (n=1), and review (n=8). Thus, 16 studies were included in our final dataset for the meta-analysis (Cremerius et al, 1998;Albers et al, 1999;Cremerius et al, 1999;Hain et al, 2000;Bokemeyer et al, 2002;Spermon et al, 2002;Tsatalpas et al, 2002;Lassen et al, 2003;De Santis et al, 2004;Becherer et al, 2005;de Wit et al, 2008;Hinz et al, 2008;Oechsle et al, 2008;Akbulut et al, 2011;Bachner et al, 2012;Siekiera et al, 2012). The flowchart of study selection was shown in Figure 1.…”

“…Furthermore, FDG-PET has more advantages compared to CT and tumor makers, especially in patients with a negative CT scan, PET may be able to identify the metastatic lesion (Tsatalpas et al, 2002). Alecander Becherer et al have reported that FDG-PET is superior to CT in the prediction of viable tumor in seminoma residuals after chemotherapy, with a sensitivity/specificity of 80%/100%, while CT had only 70%/74% (Becherer et al, 2005). Thus, FDG-PET is a new diagnostic method of testicular cancer through functional imaging rather than structure imaging.…”