Role of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET versus fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/computed tomography in detection of unknown primary tumor: a meta-analysis of the literature

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET and FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) in the detection of primary tumors in patients presenting with carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) unidentified by conventional workup, and to compare the statistical difference between the FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT. Twenty-eight studies (involving a total of 910 patients) published between 1990 and 2007 were reviewed. These studies evaluated the role of FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT in the detection of unknown primary tumors after physical examination and conventional workup failed to detect a primary tumor. Systematic methods were used to identify, select, and evaluate the methodological quality of the studies as well as to summarize the overall findings of sensitivity, specificity, and detection capacity of the primary tumor. The overall sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET in detecting unknown primary tumors were 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72–0.84)] and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74–0.83), respectively. Furthermore, FDG-PET detected 28.54% of tumors that were not apparent after CUP failed to be detected by conventional workup. Data were collected on the locations of primary tumors detected by FDG-PET in 17 studies and detected by FDG-PET/CT in seven studies. Tumors from the base of the tongue accounted for 20.7% (six of 29) of all false-positive FDG-PET scans, corresponding to a false-positive rate of 28.6% (six of 29), much higher than tumors from the others. FDG-PET exhibited a lower sensitivity with respect to the tumors at the base of the tongue and tonsils, which was 68.2 and 76.7%, respectively. In the eight studies with 430 patients diagnosed with CUP by FDG-PET/CT, 31.4% (n=135) of primary tumors were detected. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.74–0.87) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.78–0.87), respectively. FDG-PET and FDG-PET/CT can detect primary tumors that went undetected by physical examination and conventional workup. FDG-PET exhibited lower sensitivity with respect to the tumors at the base of the tongue and the tonsils.

[1]  R. Engers,et al.  Diagnostic strategies in cervical carcinoma of an unknown primary (CUP) , 2002, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[2]  P. Merlet,et al.  FDG PET in patients with cancer of an unknown primary , 2005, Nuclear medicine communications.

[3]  Kyle E. Rusthoven,et al.  The role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in cervical lymph node metastases from an unknown primary tumor , 2004, Cancer.

[4]  K. Naresh.  Do metastatic tumours from an unknown primary reflect angiogenic incompetence of the tumour at the primary site?--a hypothesis. , 2002, Medical hypotheses.

[5]  J. Roodenburg,et al.  Detection of unknown primary head and neck tumors by positron emission tomography. , 1997, International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

[6]  T. Crosby,et al.  A clinical review of the investigation and management of carcinoma of unknown primary in a single cancer network. , 2007, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).

[7]  M. Shakudo,et al.  Physiological FDG uptake in the palatine tonsils , 2001, Annals of nuclear medicine.

[8]  C. Kao,et al.  Differentiating benign and malignant pulmonary lesions with FDG-PET. , 2001, Anticancer research.

[9]  M. Beeram,et al.  Positron emission tomography in the management of unknown primary head and neck carcinoma. , 2005, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[10]  M Schwaiger,et al.  Comparison of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, MRI and endoscopy for staging head and neck squamous-cell carcinomas. , 1995, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[11]  Trampal,et al.  6. 18F-FDG Whole Body Positron Emission Tomography (PET) in the Detection of Unknown Primary Tumors. , 2000, Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T.

[12]  D. Hussey,et al.  Management of the unknown primary carcinoma: Long‐term follow‐up on a negative PET scan and negative panendoscopy , 2008, Head & neck.

[13]  Ur Metser,et al.  Increased (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in benign, nonphysiologic lesions found on whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT): accumulated data from four years of experience with PET/CT. , 2007, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[14]  K. Greven,et al.  Occult primary tumors of the head and neck , 1999, Cancer.

[15]  L. Friberg,et al.  18F-FDG whole body positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with unknown primary tumours (UPT). , 1999, European journal of cancer.

[16]  Yen-Ling Chen,et al.  Prevalence and risk of cancer of focal thyroid incidentaloma identified by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for cancer screening in healthy subjects. , 2005, Anticancer research.

[17]  V. Ambrosini,et al.  18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of carcinoma of unknown primary origin , 2006, La radiologia medica.

[18]  M. Mancini,et al.  Role of whole body positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with biopsy proven tumor metastases from unknown primary site. , 2006, The quarterly journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging : official publication of the Italian Association of Nuclear Medicine (AIMN) [and] the International Association of Radiopharmacology (IAR), [and] Section of the Society of....

[19]  S. Stringer,et al.  SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA METASTATIC TO CERVICAL LYMPH NODES FROM AN UNKNOWN HEAD AND NECK PRIMARY SITE , 1998 .

[20]  K. Greven,et al.  FDG PET in head and neck cancer. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  P. Julyan,et al.  Should FDG-PET scanning be routinely used for patients with an unknown head and neck squamous primary? , 2006, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[22]  C. Nanni,et al.  Role of 18F-FDG PET–CT imaging for the detection of an unknown primary tumour: preliminary results in 21 patients , 2005, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[23]  M. Lonneux,et al.  Metastases from Unknown Primary Tumor. PET-FDG as Initial Diagnostic Procedure? , 2000, Clinical positron imaging : official journal of the Institute for Clinical P.E.T.

[24]  M. Schrader,et al.  [Positron emission tomography for primary tumor detection in lymph node metastases with unknown primary tumor]. , 1996, HNO.

[25]  R. Delgado-Bolton,et al.  Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in primary tumor detection in unknown primary tumors. , 2003, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  K R Hess,et al.  Analysis of a diagnostic strategy for patients with suspected tumors of unknown origin. , 1995, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  G. Antoch,et al.  Dual Modality of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Patients with Cervical Carcinoma of Unknown Primary , 2005, Medical Principles and Practice.

[28]  K. Blackwell,et al.  Positron emission tomography: poor sensitivity for occult tonsillar cancer. , 2007, American journal of otolaryngology.

[29]  U. Pietrzyk,et al.  2[18F]-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography is a Sensitive Tool for the Detection of Occult Primary Cancer (Carcinoma of Unknown Primary Syndrome) with Head and Neck Lymph Node Manifestation , 2000, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[30]  P. V. van Rijk,et al.  The detection of unknown primary tumors in patients with cervical metastases by dual-head positron emission tomography. , 1999, Oral oncology.

[31]  O. Mundler,et al.  [Contribution of 18-F-FDG PET for detection of head and neck carcinomas with an unknown primary tumor]. , 2006, Annales d'Oto-Laryngologie et de Chirurgie Cervico-Faciale.

[32]  J. Debatin,et al.  Unknown primary tumors: detection with dual-modality PET/CT--initial experience. , 2005, Radiology.

[33]  S S Gambhir,et al.  A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[34]  M. Mandelkern,et al.  The role of positron emission tomography in occult primary head and neck cancers. , 1999, The cancer journal from Scientific American.

[35]  L. Peters,et al.  The usefulness of fluorine 18–labelled deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the investigation of patients with cervical lymphadenopathy from an unknown primary tumor , 2003, Head & neck.

[36]  E. Gontier,et al.  In search of an unknown primary tumour presenting with cervical metastases: Performance of hybrid FDG-PET–CT , 2007, Nuclear medicine communications.

[37]  J. Coebergh,et al.  Epidemiology of unknown primary tumours; incidence and population-based survival of 1285 patients in Southeast Netherlands, 1984-1992. , 2002, European journal of cancer.

[38]  R. Reznek,et al.  Cancer of unknown primary site. , 2008, Clinical medicine.

[39]  J. Johansen,et al.  Implication of 18F‐Fluoro‐2‐Deoxy‐D‐Glucose Positron Emission Tomography on Management of Carcinoma of Unknown Primary in the Head and Neck: A Danish Cohort Study , 2002, The Laryngoscope.

[40]  J A Werner,et al.  FDG PET detection of unknown primary tumors. , 2000, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[41]  S. Larson,et al.  FDG-PET Detected Thyroid Incidentalomas: Need for Further Investigation? , 2006, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[42]  O. Belohlávek,et al.  Prognostic and diagnostic accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/CT in 190 patients with carcinoma of unknown primary , 2007, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[43]  S. Kneifel,et al.  Increased 18F-FDG uptake mimicking thyroid cancer in a patient with Hashimoto's thyroiditis , 2003, European Radiology.