{"title":"未知原发肿瘤转移","authors":"Max Lonneux MD, Abdel-Malek Reffad MD","doi":"10.1016/S1095-0397(00)00053-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><strong>Purpose:</strong> To analyze the efficacy and impact on management of PET-FDG in patients with metastases from unknown primary tumor.</p><p><strong>Procedures:</strong> Retrospective analysis of 24 patients referred to the PET center for metastasis of unknown primary after a negative imaging workup. PET results were validated by means of oriented imaging, follow-up or biopsy when ethically justified.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> PET identified the primary tumor in 13/24 (54%) of patients: breast (<em>n</em> = 1), lung (<em>n</em> = 9), colon (<em>n</em> = 1), stomach (<em>n</em> = 1) and mouth (<em>n</em> = 1). The false positive rate of PET was 21% (5/24). PET was shown to affect the management of 10/24 patients (42%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Whole body PET-FDG was more effective than conventional imaging methods in detecting unknown primary tumors. PET altered patient management in 42% of cases. PET should be performed prior to other investigations in such patients and could avoid unnecessary and often unfruitful diagnostic procedures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":80267,"journal":{"name":"Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T","volume":"3 4","pages":"Pages 137-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1095-0397(00)00053-4","citationCount":"37","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metastases from Unknown Primary Tumor\",\"authors\":\"Max Lonneux MD, Abdel-Malek Reffad MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1095-0397(00)00053-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><strong>Purpose:</strong> To analyze the efficacy and impact on management of PET-FDG in patients with metastases from unknown primary tumor.</p><p><strong>Procedures:</strong> Retrospective analysis of 24 patients referred to the PET center for metastasis of unknown primary after a negative imaging workup. PET results were validated by means of oriented imaging, follow-up or biopsy when ethically justified.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> PET identified the primary tumor in 13/24 (54%) of patients: breast (<em>n</em> = 1), lung (<em>n</em> = 9), colon (<em>n</em> = 1), stomach (<em>n</em> = 1) and mouth (<em>n</em> = 1). The false positive rate of PET was 21% (5/24). PET was shown to affect the management of 10/24 patients (42%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> Whole body PET-FDG was more effective than conventional imaging methods in detecting unknown primary tumors. PET altered patient management in 42% of cases. PET should be performed prior to other investigations in such patients and could avoid unnecessary and often unfruitful diagnostic procedures.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80267,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T\",\"volume\":\"3 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 137-141\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1095-0397(00)00053-4\",\"citationCount\":\"37\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1095039700000534\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1095039700000534","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Purpose: To analyze the efficacy and impact on management of PET-FDG in patients with metastases from unknown primary tumor.
Procedures: Retrospective analysis of 24 patients referred to the PET center for metastasis of unknown primary after a negative imaging workup. PET results were validated by means of oriented imaging, follow-up or biopsy when ethically justified.
Results: PET identified the primary tumor in 13/24 (54%) of patients: breast (n = 1), lung (n = 9), colon (n = 1), stomach (n = 1) and mouth (n = 1). The false positive rate of PET was 21% (5/24). PET was shown to affect the management of 10/24 patients (42%).
Conclusion: Whole body PET-FDG was more effective than conventional imaging methods in detecting unknown primary tumors. PET altered patient management in 42% of cases. PET should be performed prior to other investigations in such patients and could avoid unnecessary and often unfruitful diagnostic procedures.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
