Cargando…
Preoperative Hilar and Mediastinal Lymph Node Staging in Patients with Suspected or Diagnosed Lung Cancer: Accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT:A Retrospective Cohort Study of 138 Patients
The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of integrated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in hilar and mediastinal lymph node (HMLN) staging of suspected or proven lung cancer, and to investigate potential risk factors for false negativ...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9914665/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36766508 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13030403 |
Sumario: | The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of integrated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) in hilar and mediastinal lymph node (HMLN) staging of suspected or proven lung cancer, and to investigate potential risk factors for false negative and false positive HMLN metastases. We retrospectively analyzed 162 consecutive patients with suspected or pathologically proven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to determine the diagnostic efficacy of 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to detect risk factors of false positives and false negatives. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of integrated 18F-FDG-PET/CT in detecting HMLN metastases were 59.1% (26/44), 69.1% (65/94), 47.3% (26/55), 78.3% (65/83), and 65.9% (91/138), respectively. The ROC curve showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.625 (95%-CI 0.468–0.782). The incidence of false negative and false positive HMLN metastases was 21.7% (18/83) and 52.7% (29/55), respectively. Our data shows that integrated 18F-FDG-PET/CT staging provides lower specificity and sensitivity. This confirms the ESTS guideline on lymph node staging for PET-positive HMLN. Yet it advocates more invasive staging even for PET-negative HMLN. |
---|