Standardized classification schemes in reporting oncologic PET/CT

The imaging report is essential for the communication between physicians in patient care. The information it contains must be clear, concise with evidence-based conclusions and sufficient to support clinical decision-making. In recent years, several classification schemes and/or reporting guidelines for PET have been introduced. In this manuscript, we will review the classifications most frequently used in oncology for interpreting and reporting 18F-FDG PET imaging in lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma and head and neck cancers, PSMA-ligand PET imaging for prostate cancer, and 68Ga-DOTA-peptide PET in neuroendocrine tumors (NET)

Prospective, multisite, international comparison of \u3csup\u3e18\u3c/sup\u3eF-fluoromethylcholine PET/CT, multiparametric MRI, and \u3csup\u3e68\u3c/sup\u3eGa-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT in men with high-risk features and biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: Clinical performance and patient outcomes

A significant proportion of men with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after radical prostatectomy (RP) fail prostate fossa (PF) salvage radiation treatment (SRT). This study was done to assess the ability of F-fluoromethylcholine ( F-FCH) PET/CT (hereafter referred to as F-FCH), Ga-HBED-CC PSMA-11 PET/CT (hereafter referred to as PSMA), and pelvic multiparametric MRI (hereafter referred to as pelvic MRI) to identify men who will best benefit from SRT. Methods: Prospective, multisite imaging studies were carried out in men who had rising PSA levels after RP, high-risk features, and negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and who were being considered for SRT. F-FCH (91/91), pelvic MRI (88/91), and PSMA (31/91) (Australia) were all performed within 2 wk. Imaging was interpreted by experienced local/central interpreters who were masked with regard to other imaging results, with consensus being reached for discordant interpretations. Expected management was documented before and after imaging, and data about all treatments and PSA levels were collected for 3 y. The treatment response to SRT was defined as a reduction in PSA levels of .50% without androgen deprivation therapy. Results: The median Gleason score, PSA level at imaging, and PSA doubling time were 8, 0.42 (interquartile range, 0.29–0.93) ng/mL, and 5.0 (interquartile range, 3.3–7.6) months. Recurrent prostate cancer was detected in 28% (25/88) by pelvic MRI, 32% (29/91) by F-FCH, and 42% (13/31) by PSMA. This recurrence was found within the PF in 21.5% (19/88), 13% (12/91), and 19% (6/31) and at sites outside the PF (extra-PF) in 8% (7/88), 19% (17/91), and 32% (10/31) by MRI, F-FCH, and PSMA, respectively (P, 0.004). A total of 94% (16/17) of extra-PF sites on F-FCH were within the pelvic MRI field. Intra-pelvic extra-PF disease was detected in 90% (9/10) by PSMA and in 31% (5/16) by MRI. F-FCH changed management in 46% (42/91), and MRI changed management in 24% (21/88). PSMA provided additional management changes over F-FCH in 23% (7/31). The treatment response to SRT was higher in men with negative results or disease confined to the PF than in men with extra-PF disease ( F-FCH 73% [32/44] versus 33% [3/9] [P, 0.02], pelvic MRI 70% [32/46] versus 50% [2/4] [P was not significant], and PSMA 88% [7/ 8] versus 14% [1/7] [P, 0.005]). Men with negative imaging results (MRI, F-FCH, or PSMA) had high (78%) SRT response rates. Conclusion: F-FCH and PSMA had high detection rates for extra-PF disease in men with negative/equivocal conventional imaging results and rising PSA levels after RP. These findings affected management and treatment responses, suggesting an important role for PET in triaging men being considered for curative SRT. 18 18 18 68 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 1

Prognostic Value of Sarcopenia and Metabolic Parameters of 18^{18}F-FDG-PET/CT in Patients with Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer

We investigated the prognostic value of sarcopenia measurements and metabolic parameters of primary tumors derived from $^{18}$F-FDG-PET/CT among patients with primary, metastatic esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer. A total of 128 patients (26 females; 102 males; mean age 63.5 ± 11.7 years; age range: 29-91 years) with advanced metastatic gastroesophageal cancer who underwent $^{18}$F-FDG-PET/CT as part of their initial staging between November 2008 and December 2019 were included. Mean and maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) and SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) were measured. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured at the level of L3 on the CT component of the $^{18}$F-FDG-PET/CT. Sarcopenia was defined as SMI < 34.4 cm$^{2}$/m$^{2}$ in women and <45.4 cm$^{2}$/m$^{2}$ in men. A total of 60/128 patients (47%) had sarcopenia on baseline $^{18}$F-FDG-PET/CT. Mean SMI in patients with sarcopenia was 29.7 cm$^{2}$/m$^{2}$ in females and 37.5 cm$^{2}$/m$^{2}$ in males. In a univariable analysis, ECOG (<0.001), bone metastases (p = 0.028), SMI (p = 0.0075) and dichotomized sarcopenia score (p = 0.033) were significant prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Age was a poor prognostic factor for OS (p = 0.017). Standard metabolic parameters were not statistically significant in the univariable analysis and thus were not evaluated further. In a multivariable analysis, ECOG (p < 0.001) and bone metastases (p = 0.019) remained significant poor prognostic factors for OS and PFS. The final model demonstrated improved OS and PFS prognostication when combining clinical parameters with imaging-derived sarcopenia measurements but not metabolic tumor parameters. In summary, the combination of clinical parameters and sarcopenia status, but not standard metabolic values from $^{18}$F-FDG-PET/CT, may improve survival prognostication in patients with advanced, metastatic gastroesophageal cancer

International EANM-SNMMI-ISMRM consensus recommendation for PET/MRI in oncology

The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) is an international scientific and professional organization founded in 1954 to promote the science, technology, and practical application of nuclear medicine. The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional non-profit medical association that facilitates communication worldwide between individuals pursuing clinical and research excellence in nuclear medicine. The EANM was founded in 1985. The merged International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) is an international, nonprofit, scientific association whose purpose is to promote communication, research, development, and applications in the field of magnetic resonance in medicine and biology and other related topics and to develop and provide channels and facilities for continuing education in the field.The ISMRM was founded in 1994 through the merger of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and the Society of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. SNMMI, ISMRM, and EANM members are physicians, technologists, and scientists specializing in the research and practice of nuclear medicine and/or magnetic resonance imaging. The SNMMI, ISMRM, and EANM will periodically define new guidelines for nuclear medicine practice to help advance the science of nuclear medicine and/or magnetic resonance imaging and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the world. Existing practice guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each practice guideline, representing a policy statement by the SNMMI/EANM/ISMRM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review. The SNMMI, ISMRM, and EANM recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging and magnetic resonance imaging requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guideline by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. These guidelines are an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate care for patients. They are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care. For these reasons and those set forth below, the SNMMI, the ISMRM, and the EANM caution against the use of these guidelines in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by the physician or medical physicist in light of all the circumstances presented. Thus, there is no implication that an approach differing from the guidelines, standing alone, is below the standard of care. To the contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set forth in the guidelines when, in the reasonable judgment of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to publication of the guidelines. The practice of medicine includes both the art and the science of the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, and treatment of disease. The variety and complexity of human conditions make it impossible to always reach the most appropriate diagnosis or to predict with certainty a particular response to treatment. Therefore, it should be recognized that adherence to these guidelines will not ensure an accurate diagnosis or a successful outcome. All that should be expected is that the practitioner will follow a reasonable course of action based on current knowledge, available resources, and the needs of the patient to deliver effective and safe medical care. The sole purpose of these guidelines is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective

The Role and Limitations of 18-Fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) Scan and Computerized Tomography (CT) in Restaging Patients with Hepatic Colorectal Metastases Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Comparison with Operative and Pathological Findings

BACKGROUND: Recent data confirmed the importance of 18-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the selection of patients with colorectal hepatic metastases for surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before hepatic resection in selected cases may improve outcome. The influence of chemotherapy on the sensitivity of FDG-PET and CT in detecting liver metastases is not known. METHODS: Patients were assigned to either neoadjuvant treatment or immediate hepatic resection according to resectability, risk of recurrence, extrahepatic disease, and patient preference. Two-thirds of them underwent FDG-PET/CT before chemotherapy; all underwent preoperative contrast-enhanced CT and FDG-PET/CT. Those without extensive extrahepatic disease underwent open exploration and resection of all the metastases according to original imaging findings. Operative and pathological findings were compared to imaging results. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (33 lesions) underwent immediate hepatic resection (group 1), and 48 patients (122 lesions) received preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy (group 2). Sensitivity of FDG-PET and CT in detecting colorectal (CR) metastases was significantly higher in group 1 than in group 2 (FDG-PET: 93.3 vs 49%, P < 0.0001; CT: 87.5 vs 65.3, P = 0.038). CT had a higher sensitivity than FDG-PET in detecting CR metastases following neoadjuvant therapy (65.3 vs 49%, P < 0.0001). Sensitivity of FDG-PET, but not of CT, was lower in group 2 patients whose chemotherapy included bevacizumab compared to patients who did not receive bevacizumab (39 vs 59%, P = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET/CT sensitivity is lowered by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CT is more sensitive than FDG-PET in detecting CR metastases following neoadjuvant therapy. Surgical decision-making requires information from multiple imaging modalities and pretreatment findings. Baseline FDG-PET and CT before neoadjuvant therapy are mandatory