The potential clinical value of FDG-PET for recurrent renal cell carcinoma

Abstract

FDG-PET would be useful for postoperative surveillance in patients with RCC, although its impact on treatment decisions may be limited. Further investigations are necessary to conclude whether PET has a prognostic value.

Standardized Uptake Values Highly Correlate with Tumor Size and Fuhrman Grade in Patients with Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

“…In other studies PET results were not related to Fuhrman score or histological type of primary tumor. (Majhail et al, 2003;Nakatani et al, 2009;Bertagna et al, 2013) Nakhoda et al (Nakhoda et al, 2013) suggested that 18F-FDG-PET/ CT may be useful to assess RC tumor biology according to the clear cell RC subtype had significantly greater levels of metabolism compared to the papillary RC. Namura et al (Namura et al, 2010) revealed that the SUVmax has the potency as a novel biomarker to predict the survival time of patients with advanced RC and our findings indicate that high SUVmax values are associated with bigger tumor size and higher nuclear grade in patients with clear cell RC.…”

Post Partial Nephrectomy Surveillance Imaging: an Evidence-Based Approach

“…Nakatani et al [42] studied the value of FDG-PET to detect recurrent and distant metastatic disease in 23 patients that had previous nephrectomy. Overall, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of FDG-PET for detecting recurrent malignancy were 81, 71, and 79 %, respectively.…”

Imaging techniques as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in renal cell carcinoma

“…The value of FDG PET scans in RCC diagnosis is debated with multiple small studies showing sensitivity ranging from 32% to 100% for initial diagnosis and staging of primary RCC [Montravers et al 2000;Nakatani et al 2011]. The largest of these series, published by Kang and colleagues, included 66 patients with RCC and showed a sensitivity of 60% [Kang et al 2004].…”

“…The largest of these series, published by Kang and colleagues, included 66 patients with RCC and showed a sensitivity of 60% [Kang et al 2004]. Nakatani and colleagues suggested a higher FDG sensitivity for RCC metastasis but this has not yet been validated [Nakatani et al 2011]. Larger series of studies are required to validate the use of FDG-PET scan in RCC but as the specificity of this technique was higher than conventional imaging in previous studies, its use would be limited at present as a tool to help resolve dilemmas in selected cases with equivocal conventional imaging but high suspicion.…”