A pilot study utilizing whole body 18 F-FDG-PET/CT as a comprehensive screening strategy for occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism
- PMID: 21802118
- PMCID: PMC3277867
- DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.06.025
A pilot study utilizing whole body 18 F-FDG-PET/CT as a comprehensive screening strategy for occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism
Abstract
Background: Approximately 7-10% of patients with unprovoked VTE will be diagnosed with cancer within 12 months. Although cancer screening has been proposed in these patients, the optimal strategy remains unclear. In a pilot study, we prospectively investigated the use of FDG-PET/CT to screen for occult malignancy in 40 patients with unprovoked VTE.
Materials/methods: Patients were initially screened for occult malignancy with a focused history, physical, and laboratory evaluation. Patients underwent whole body FDG-PET/CT and were followed for up to two years for a new diagnosis of cancer. The total costs of using FDG-PET/CT as a comprehensive screening strategy were determined using 2010 Medicare reimbursement rates.
Results: Completion of FDG-PET/CT imaging was feasible and identified abnormal findings requiring additional evaluations in 62.5% of patients. Occult malignancy was evident in only one patient (cancer incidence 2.5%) and FDG-PET/CT imaging excluded malignancy in the remainder of patients. No patients with a negative FDG-PET/CT were diagnosed with malignancy during an average (±SD) follow-up of 449 (±311) days. The use of FDG-PET/CT to screen for occult malignancy added $59,151 in total costs ($1,479 per patient). The majority of these costs were due to the cost of the FDG-PET/CT ($1,162 per patient or 78.5% of total per-patient costs).
Conclusions: FDG-PET/CT may have utility for excluding occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked VTE. The costs of this comprehensive screening strategy were comparable to other screening approaches. Larger studies are needed to further evaluate the utility and cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET/CT as a cancer screening strategy in patients with unprovoked VTE.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Limited screening with versus without (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT for occult malignancy in unprovoked venous thromboembolism: an open-label randomised controlled trial.Lancet Oncol. 2016 Feb;17(2):193-199. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00480-5. Epub 2015 Dec 8. Lancet Oncol. 2016. PMID: 26672686 Clinical Trial.
-
Screening for occult malignancy with FDG-PET/CT in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism.Int J Cancer. 2013 Nov;133(9):2157-64. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28229. Epub 2013 May 29. Int J Cancer. 2013. PMID: 23616232
-
In patients with unprovoked VTE, does the addition of FDG PET/CT to a limited occult cancer screening strategy offer good value for money? A cost-effectiveness analysis from the publicly funded health care systems.Thromb Res. 2018 Nov;171:97-102. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.09.050. Epub 2018 Sep 19. Thromb Res. 2018. PMID: 30268859 Clinical Trial.
-
Performance of 18F-fluorodesoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography for cancer screening in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: Results from an individual patient data meta-analysis.Thromb Res. 2020 Oct;194:153-157. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.06.034. Epub 2020 Jun 23. Thromb Res. 2020. PMID: 32788108
-
Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 8;11(11):CD010837. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010837.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 1;10:CD010837. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010837.pub5. PMID: 30407621 Free PMC article. Updated.
Cited by
-
Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: an underestimated major health problem.World J Surg Oncol. 2015 Jun 20;13:204. doi: 10.1186/s12957-015-0592-8. World J Surg Oncol. 2015. PMID: 26092573 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cost-effectiveness of Fluorine-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in tumours other than lung cancer: A systematic review.World J Radiol. 2014 Mar 28;6(3):48-55. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v6.i3.48. World J Radiol. 2014. PMID: 24765240 Free PMC article.
-
Thrombosis and cancer.Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul 10;9(8):437-49. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.106. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012. PMID: 22777060 Review.
-
Screening for cancer in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 10;7(6):e015562. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015562. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28601834 Free PMC article.
-
Positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography as a screening tool for occult malignancy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism: an observational study.Medicine (Baltimore). 2014 Nov;93(21):e110. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000110. Medicine (Baltimore). 2014. PMID: 25380083 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Carrier M, Le Gal G, Wells PS, Fergusson D, Ramsay T, Rodger MA. Systematic review: the Trousseau syndrome revisited: should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism? Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(5):323–33. - PubMed
-
- Lee AY, Levine MN. Venous thromboembolism and cancer: risks and outcomes. Circulation. 2003;107(23 Suppl 1):I17–21. - PubMed
-
- Sorensen HT, Mellemkjaer L, Olsen JH, Baron JA. Prognosis of cancers associated with venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(25):1846–50. - PubMed
-
- Sorensen HT, Mellemkjaer L, Steffensen FH, Olsen JH, Nielsen GL. The risk of a diagnosis of cancer after primary deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(17):1169–73. - PubMed
-
- Cornuz J, Pearson SD, Creager MA, Cook EF, Goldman L. Importance of findings on the initial evaluation for cancer in patients with symptomatic idiopathic deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(10):785–93. - PubMed