Evaluation of whole-body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography: a preliminary report

Abstract

Objective: (18)F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a promising screening modality targeting whole body. However, the validity of PET cancer screening remains to be assessed. Even the screening accuracy for whole-body screening using FDG-PET has not been evaluated. In this study, we investigated the screening accuracy of PET cancer screening.

Methods: A total of 2911 asymptomatic participants (1629 men and 1282 women, mean age 59.79 years) underwent both FDG-PET and other thorough examinations for multiple organs (gastrofiberscopy, total colonofiberscopy or barium enema, low-dose thin section computed tomography and sputum cytology, abdominal ultrasonography, an assay of prostate-specific antigen, mammography, mammary ultrasonography, Pap smear for the uterine cervix, and magnetic resonance imaging for the endometrium and ovaries) between February 2004 and January 2005, and followed sufficiently. The detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of FDG-PET were calculated using cancer data obtained from all examinations along with a 1 year follow-up.

Results: From among 2911 participants FDG-PET found 28 cancers, 129 cancers were PET negative. PET-positive cancers comprised seven colorectal cancers, four lung cancers, four thyroid cancers, three breast cancers, two gastric cancers, two prostate cancers, two small intestinal sarcomas (gastrointestinal stromal tumors), one malignant lymphoma, one head and neck malignancy (nasopharyngeal carcinoid tumor), one thymoma, and one hepatocellular carcinoma. PET-negative cancers included 22 gastric cancers and 20 prostate cancers that were essentially difficult to detect using FDG-PET. The overall detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were estimated to be 0.96%, 17.83%, 95.15%, and 11.20%, respectively.

Conclusions: FDG-PET can detect a variety of cancers at an early stage as part of a whole-body screening modality. The detection rate of PET cancer screening was higher than that of other screening modalities, which had already shown evidence of efficacy. However, the sensitivity of PET cancer screening was lower than that of other thorough examinations performed at our institute. FDG-PET has some limitations, and cancer screening using only FDG-PET is likely to miss some cancers.