BOOK
PET/CT in Cancer: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Individualized Imaging
Mohsen Beheshti | Werner Langsteger | Alireza Rezaee
(2017)
Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
Edited, authored, and reviewed by an expert team of oncologists and nuclear physicians/radiologists, this one-of-a-kind title helps you make the most of the critical role PET/CT plays in cancer staging and therapeutic responses to individualized treatments. Drs. Mohsen Beheshti, Werner Langsteger, and Alireza Rezaee place an emphasis on cutting-edge research and evidence-based practice, ensuring that you’re up to date with every aspect of this fast-changing field. For each tumor entity, you’ll find authoritative discussions of background, pathology, common pattern of spread, TNM classification, clinical guidelines, discussion, evidence-based recommendations, key points, and pitfalls.
- Contains 130 teaching cases with high-quality PET/CT images.
- Presents clear, practical guidance from multiple experts across subspecialties: nuclear medicine, oncology, oncologic surgery, radiation oncology, and clinical research.
- Includes separate, comprehensive chapters on head and neck, lung, breast, esophageal/gastric, pancreas/neuroendocrine, colorectal, hepatobiliary, lymphoma, gynecologic, prostate, melanoma, and brain cancers.
- Features short reviews of clinical aspects of different cancers, primary diagnostic procedures, and recommendations regarding PET/CT from ESMO and NCCN.
- Helps to reveal positive outcomes or potential deficits or weaknesses in an individual plan of care, allowing for better outcomes in patient care, future cancer research, and application of radiotracers beyond 18F-FDG.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Front Cover | Cover | ||
| PET/CT in Cancer: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Individualized Imaging | i | ||
| PET/CT in Cancer: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Individualized Imaging | iii | ||
| Copyright | iv | ||
| Contributors | v | ||
| Preface | vii | ||
| Contents | ix | ||
| Abbreviations | xi | ||
| 1 - Head and Neck Cancers | 1 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 1 | ||
| General | 1 | ||
| Early Clinical Symptoms9 | 1 | ||
| Standard Diagnostic Procedures10 | 1 | ||
| Standard Treatment11–13 | 1 | ||
| Prognostic Factors13–15 | 1 | ||
| Five-Year Survival16 | 1 | ||
| TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPICAL BEHAVIOR | 1 | ||
| Histopathology2,17 | 1 | ||
| N-lymph nodes2 | 1 | ||
| M-distant metastasis2 | 2 | ||
| TNM CLASSIFICATION13,19 | 2 | ||
| Guidelines | 2 | ||
| EVIDENCE-BASED VIEWPOINTS | 2 | ||
| COST-EFFECTIVENESS | 3 | ||
| CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW | 3 | ||
| PITFALLS31–35 | 3 | ||
| False Positive | 3 | ||
| False Negative | 4 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 4 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 5 | ||
| Case 1: Staging, Laryngeal Cancer | 5 | ||
| Case 2: Staging, SCC, Base of the Tongue | 6 | ||
| Case 3: Staging, Sinus Piriform Cancer | 6 | ||
| Case 4: Cancer of Unknown Primary | 7 | ||
| Case 5: Staging, Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma | 9 | ||
| Case 6: Staging, Tonsillar Cancer With Incidental Second Cancer | 10 | ||
| Case 7: Staging, Oropharyngeal Cancer, Myelodysplastic Syndrome | 11 | ||
| Case 8: HNSCC, Recurrence | 12 | ||
| Case 9: Therapy Monitoring, Nasopharyngeal Cancer | 12 | ||
| Case 10: Staging and Restaging Rhabdomyosarcoma | 13 | ||
| REFERENCES | 20 | ||
| 2 - Lung Cancer | 23 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 23 | ||
| General1 | 23 | ||
| Clinical Signs/Symptoms6 | 23 | ||
| Primary Diagnostic Procedures7–12 | 23 | ||
| Standard Treatments13–26 | 23 | ||
| 3 - Breast Cancer | 43 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 43 | ||
| General1,2 | 43 | ||
| Early Clinical Symptoms1,3 | 43 | ||
| Primary Diagnostic Procedures1,4 | 43 | ||
| Standard Treatment5 | 43 | ||
| Prognostic Factors6 | 43 | ||
| Five-Year Survival7 | 44 | ||
| TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPICAL BEHAVIOR | 44 | ||
| Histopathology8 | 44 | ||
| Distribution and Localization9–11 | 44 | ||
| N-lymph nodes | 44 | ||
| T-primary | 44 | ||
| M-distant metastasis | 44 | ||
| TNM CLASSIFICATION12 | 44 | ||
| Primary Tumor (T) Categories | 44 | ||
| Regional Lymph Nodes (N; Based on Looking at Them Under a Microscope) | 44 | ||
| Distant Metastasis (M) | 45 | ||
| EVIDENCE-BASED VIEWPOINTS5,12,14,15 | 45 | ||
| COST-EFFECTIVENESS | 45 | ||
| CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW | 45 | ||
| PITFALLS17 | 46 | ||
| False Positive | 46 | ||
| False Negative | 46 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 47 | ||
| Primary Staging-Restaging | 47 | ||
| Treatment Monitoring | 47 | ||
| Prognostic Value | 47 | ||
| PET/MRI and Positron Emission Mammography | 47 | ||
| FDG PET/CT and Breast-Feeding | 48 | ||
| Radiotracers Beyond FDG | 48 | ||
| CONCLUSION | 48 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 48 | ||
| Case 1: Staging Breast Cancer | 48 | ||
| Case 2: Assessment of Lymph Node Metastases | 49 | ||
| Findings | 49 | ||
| Teaching points | 49 | ||
| Case 3: Extensive Distant Metastases | 49 | ||
| Case 4: Inflammatory Breast Cancer | 51 | ||
| Case 5: Staging, FDG Versus 18F-NaF PET/CT | 51 | ||
| Case 6: Breast Cancer During Breast-feeding | 54 | ||
| Case 7: Contralateral Axillary Lymph Node Involvement | 54 | ||
| Case 8: Breast Cancer—Pitfall | 56 | ||
| Case 9: Staging—FDG Versus NaF PET/CT | 58 | ||
| Case 10: Therapy Monitoring | 58 | ||
| Case 11: Staging—Bone Seeking Agents (NaF PET/CT Versus Conventional 99mTc-MDP Bone Scan) | 58 | ||
| Case 12: Breast Cancer and Silicone Implant | 58 | ||
| REFERENCES | 61 | ||
| 4 - Gastroesophageal Cancer | 65 | ||
| GASTRIC CANCER | 65 | ||
| General1,2 | 65 | ||
| Early clinical symptoms2,3 | 65 | ||
| Primary diagnostic procedures4,5 | 65 | ||
| Standard treatment6 | 65 | ||
| Five-Year Survival7 | 65 | ||
| Prognostic factors2 | 65 | ||
| Tumor Characteristics and Typical Behavior | 65 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 65 | ||
| T-primary8 | 65 | ||
| N-lymph nodes9 | 65 | ||
| M-distant metastasis2 | 65 | ||
| TNM Classification10 | 66 | ||
| Guidelines10,11 | 66 | ||
| Evidence-Based Viewpoints | 66 | ||
| Cost-Effectiveness | 66 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 67 | ||
| False negative | 67 | ||
| Discussion | 67 | ||
| Staging | 67 | ||
| Therapy monitoring and prognostic value | 68 | ||
| Radiotracers beyond FDG | 68 | ||
| ESOPHAGEAL CANCER | 69 | ||
| Early clinical symptoms51 | 69 | ||
| Primary diagnostic procedure51,52 | 69 | ||
| Standard treatment53,54 | 69 | ||
| Prognostic factors55 | 69 | ||
| Five-year survival56,57 | 69 | ||
| Histopathology (worldwide)58 | 69 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 69 | ||
| T-primary59 | 69 | ||
| N-lymph nodes60 | 69 | ||
| M-distant metastasis60 | 70 | ||
| TNM Classification61 | 70 | ||
| Guidelines61,62 | 70 | ||
| Evidence-Based Viewpoints | 70 | ||
| Cost-Effectiveness | 70 | ||
| Clinical Points of View | 70 | ||
| Case 1: Staging esophageal cancer | 72 | ||
| Case 2: Treatment monitoring | 73 | ||
| Case 3: Recurrent gastric cancer | 73 | ||
| Case 4: Staging signet ring cell cancer | 75 | ||
| Case 5: N-staging, esophageal cancer | 76 | ||
| Case 6: Staging, upper thoracic esophageal cancer | 76 | ||
| Case 7: Staging gastric cancer | 77 | ||
| Case 8: Treatment monitoring | 77 | ||
| Case 9: Staging—atypical distant metastasis | 78 | ||
| Case 10: Atypical lymph node metastases | 79 | ||
| Case 11: Staging, FDG PET/CT versus CT | 79 | ||
| REFERENCES | 81 | ||
| 5 - Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms | 85 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 85 | ||
| General | 85 | ||
| Clinical Symptoms | 85 | ||
| Primary Diagnostic Procedures11,22–24 | 86 | ||
| Standard Treatment12,25–27 | 86 | ||
| Prognostic Factors | 86 | ||
| Five-Year Survival | 86 | ||
| TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPICAL BEHAVIOR | 86 | ||
| Histopathology of P-NETs11,37 | 86 | ||
| N-P-NETs lymph nodes40 | 87 | ||
| M-P-NETs distant metastasis40 | 87 | ||
| TNM CLASSIFICATION FOR P-NENS41,42 | 87 | ||
| TNM CLASSIFICATION FOR GI-NENS42 | 87 | ||
| GUIDELINES | 87 | ||
| EVIDENCE-BASED VIEWPOINTS | 87 | ||
| COST-EFFECTIVENESS | 88 | ||
| CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW | 88 | ||
| PITFALLS | 89 | ||
| False Positive (68Ga-DOTA-Peptide PET/CT) | 89 | ||
| False Negative (68Ga-DOTA-Peptide PET/CT)54 | 89 | ||
| False Positive (FDG PET/CT)56 | 89 | ||
| False Negative (FDG PET/CT)57 | 89 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 89 | ||
| FDG PET/CT | 89 | ||
| 68Ga-DOTA-Peptide Conjugates PET/CT | 90 | ||
| Dual-Imaging FDG and 68Ga-DOTA PET/CT | 90 | ||
| 18F-DOPA and 11C-5-HTP PET/CT | 91 | ||
| 64Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT | 91 | ||
| Pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma | 92 | ||
| Metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms with unknown primary | 92 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 93 | ||
| Case 1: 18F-DOPA PET/CT: Staging GI-NEN | 93 | ||
| Case 2: 18F-DOPA PET/CT: Staging Paraganglioma | 93 | ||
| Case 3: 18F-DOPA PET/CT: Lung NEN (Carcinoid) | 94 | ||
| Case 4: 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT: GI-NEN | 94 | ||
| Case 5: FDG Versus 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT: Staging Gastric NEN | 95 | ||
| Case 6: 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT: Restaging—Gastric NEN | 95 | ||
| Case 7: 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT: Lung NEN Recurrence | 98 | ||
| Case 8: FDG Versus 68Ga-DOTA-Peptide PET/CT: Recurrent NEN | 98 | ||
| Case 9: FDG Versus 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT: Recurrent NEN | 99 | ||
| Case 10: FDG Versus 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT: Rectal NEN | 99 | ||
| Case 11: FDG PET/CT: Staging Lung NEC | 99 | ||
| Case 12: 18F-DOPA Versus 68Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT: Recurrent Medullary Thyroid Cancer | 99 | ||
| Case 13: FDG and 18F-DOPA PET/CT: Mass-Forming Pancreatitis | 102 | ||
| REFERENCES | 103 | ||
| 6 - Colorectal Cancer | 111 | ||
| BACKGROUND1–8 | 111 | ||
| Five-Year Survival9 | 111 | ||
| Prognostic Factors10 | 111 | ||
| TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPICAL BEHAVIOR | 111 | ||
| Histopathology11 | 111 | ||
| Cancer Distribution12 | 111 | ||
| COMMON PATTERN OF SPREAD | 111 | ||
| Lymph Nodes | 111 | ||
| Distant Metastasis13 | 111 | ||
| TNM CLASSIFICATION | 112 | ||
| CLINICAL GUIDELINES14–16 | 112 | ||
| EVIDENCE-BASED VIEWPOINTS14,15,17 | 112 | ||
| COST-EFFECTIVENESS18–20 | 112 | ||
| CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW | 112 | ||
| Primary Staging | 112 | ||
| Follow-Up After Surgery | 112 | ||
| Metastatic Disease | 113 | ||
| PITFALLS21 | 113 | ||
| False Positive | 113 | ||
| False Negative | 113 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 113 | ||
| Primary Staging/Restaging | 113 | ||
| Recurrent Disease | 114 | ||
| Therapy Monitoring | 114 | ||
| Prognostic Value | 114 | ||
| Radiopharmaceuticals Beyond 18F-FDG | 114 | ||
| CONCLUSION | 115 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 115 | ||
| Case 1: Staging Colon Cancer, Distant Metastasis | 115 | ||
| Case 2: Rectal Cancer, Radiotherapy Planning | 116 | ||
| Case 3: Sigmoid Colon Cancer, Atypical Metastases | 116 | ||
| Case 4: Staging Rectal Cancer, Pulmonary Metastasis | 116 | ||
| Case 5: Rectal Cancer, Treatment Evaluation | 116 | ||
| Case 6: Restaging Rectal Cancer, Treatment Evaluation—Flip-Flop Response | 119 | ||
| Case 7: Staging of Sigmoid Colon Cancer, Tubular Adenoma | 119 | ||
| Case 8: Rectal Cancer Recurrence | 119 | ||
| Case 9: Sigmoid Cancer—Biochemical Recurrence | 119 | ||
| Case 10: Colon Cancer With Surgical Mesh Repair | 122 | ||
| Case 11: Follow-Up, Equivocal Morphologic Findings on CT | 122 | ||
| References | 124 | ||
| 7 - Hepatobiliary Cancer | 127 | ||
| HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA | 127 | ||
| Early clinical symptoms8 | 127 | ||
| Primary diagnostic procedures | 127 | ||
| Standard treatment3,7,12,13 | 127 | ||
| Prognostic factors13 | 127 | ||
| Five-year survival12,14 | 127 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 128 | ||
| T-primary | 128 | ||
| N-lymph nodes16 | 128 | ||
| M-distant metastasis17. Most common sites of extrahepatic metastasis | 128 | ||
| TNM Classification18 | 128 | ||
| Primary tumor (T) | 128 | ||
| Regional lymph nodes (N) | 128 | ||
| Distant metastasis (M) | 128 | ||
| BCLC Staging Classification19 | 128 | ||
| Guidelines | 128 | ||
| Evidence-based Viewpoints | 128 | ||
| Cost-effectiveness | 128 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 128 | ||
| False negative | 129 | ||
| 11C-Acetate | 130 | ||
| 11C- and 18F-labeled choline | 130 | ||
| CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA | 130 | ||
| Early clinical symptoms | 130 | ||
| Primary diagnostic procedures62 | 130 | ||
| Standard treatment63–65 | 130 | ||
| Prognostic factors66–69 | 131 | ||
| Five-year survival70 | 131 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 131 | ||
| T-primary72 | 131 | ||
| N-lymph nodes. Intrahepatic cancer16 | 131 | ||
| M-distant metastasis16. Common | 131 | ||
| TNM Classification for Intrahepatic Subtype18 | 131 | ||
| Guidelines | 131 | ||
| Evidence-based Viewpoints | 131 | ||
| Cost-effectiveness | 132 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 132 | ||
| False negative | 132 | ||
| Discussion | 132 | ||
| GALLBLADDER CANCER | 133 | ||
| Early Clinical Symptoms | 133 | ||
| Primary Diagnostic Procedures18,60 | 133 | ||
| Standard treatment93,94 | 133 | ||
| Prognostic factors95 | 133 | ||
| Five-year survival96 | 133 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 133 | ||
| T-primary98 | 133 | ||
| N-lymph nodes18 | 133 | ||
| M-distant metastasis99 | 133 | ||
| TNM Classification18 | 133 | ||
| Primary tumor (T) | 134 | ||
| Regional lymph nodes (N) | 134 | ||
| Distant metastasis (M) | 134 | ||
| Guidelines | 134 | ||
| Evidence-based Viewpoints | 134 | ||
| Cost-effectiveness | 134 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 134 | ||
| False negative | 134 | ||
| Discussion | 134 | ||
| Case 1: Staging HCC—18F-FCH PET/CT | 135 | ||
| Case 2: Staging cholangiocarcinoma | 136 | ||
| Case 3: Staging HCC—18F-FCH PET/CT | 136 | ||
| Case 4: Recurrent HCC | 137 | ||
| Case 5: Recurrent cholangiocarcinoma (dual-time liver imaging) | 138 | ||
| Case 6: Recurrent cholangiocarcinoma | 140 | ||
| Case 7: 18F-FCH and FDG PET/CT in recurrent HCC | 140 | ||
| Case 8: HCC—tumor thrombosis | 142 | ||
| REFERENCES | 143 | ||
| 8 - Lymphoma | 149 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 149 | ||
| General1 | 149 | ||
| Early Clinical Symptoms1 | 149 | ||
| Primary Diagnostic Procedure2 | 149 | ||
| Standard Treatment1 | 149 | ||
| Prognostic Factors3,4 | 149 | ||
| Five-Year Survival1 | 150 | ||
| TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPICAL BEHAVIOR | 150 | ||
| Histopathology5,6 | 150 | ||
| Non-Hodgkin lymphoma | 150 | ||
| Hodgkin lymphoma | 150 | ||
| CLINICAL CLASSIFICATION AND STAGING: ANN ARBOR STAGING SYSTEM8 | 150 | ||
| GUIDELINES | 150 | ||
| Evidence-based Viewpoints | 150 | ||
| Cost-effectiveness | 151 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 151 | ||
| PITFALLS6,19–22 | 152 | ||
| False Positive | 152 | ||
| False Negative | 152 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 152 | ||
| Primary Staging or Restaging | 152 | ||
| Therapy Monitoring | 152 | ||
| Prognostic Value and Change of Management | 153 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 153 | ||
| Case 1: Staging—DLBCL | 153 | ||
| Case 2: Restaging—DLBCL | 153 | ||
| Case 3: Therapy Monitoring—Hodgkin Lymphoma | 156 | ||
| Case 4: DLBCL—Atypical Presentation in Genitourinary Tract | 156 | ||
| Case 5: Burkitt Lymphoma—Atypical Presentation | 156 | ||
| Case 6: DLBCL—Prominent Bone Marrow Infiltration | 159 | ||
| Case 7: Hodgkin Lymphoma—Therapy Evaluation (Deauville Criteria) | 159 | ||
| Case 8: DLBCL—Disease Progression | 159 | ||
| Case 9: Staging and Restaging Burkitt Lymphoma | 161 | ||
| Case 10: Meningeal Lymphomatosis | 164 | ||
| Case 11: Marrow Uptake After Therapy Using G-CSF | 164 | ||
| Case 12: Hodgkin Lymphoma—Treatment Monitoring | 164 | ||
| REFERENCES | 166 | ||
| 9 - Gynecologic Cancers | 169 | ||
| CERVICAL CANCER | 169 | ||
| Early clinical symptoms5 | 169 | ||
| Primary diagnostic procedures5 | 169 | ||
| Standard treatment6 | 169 | ||
| Prognostic factors7,8 | 169 | ||
| Five-year survival9 | 169 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 169 | ||
| T-primary | 169 | ||
| N-lymph nodes11 | 169 | ||
| M-distant metastasis11 | 169 | ||
| TNM and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Classification5 | 170 | ||
| Guidelines | 170 | ||
| Evidence-Based Viewpoints | 170 | ||
| Cost-Effectiveness | 170 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 170 | ||
| False negative | 171 | ||
| Discussion | 171 | ||
| ENDOMETRIAL CANCER | 173 | ||
| Early clinical symptoms47 | 173 | ||
| Primary diagnostic procedures49,50 | 173 | ||
| Standard treatment51 | 173 | ||
| Prognostic factors52 | 173 | ||
| Five-year survival53 | 173 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 173 | ||
| T-primary | 173 | ||
| N-lymph nodes53 | 173 | ||
| M-distant metastasis53 | 173 | ||
| TNM and International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Classification52 | 173 | ||
| Guidelines | 174 | ||
| Evidence-Based Viewpoints | 174 | ||
| Cost-Effectiveness | 175 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 175 | ||
| False negative | 175 | ||
| Discussion | 175 | ||
| OVARIAN CANCER | 176 | ||
| Standard treatment6 | 176 | ||
| Prognostic factors85–87 | 176 | ||
| Distribution and localization | 177 | ||
| T-primary | 177 | ||
| N-lymph nodes92 | 177 | ||
| Guidelines | 177 | ||
| Evidence-Based Viewpoints | 179 | ||
| Cost-Effectiveness | 179 | ||
| Clinical Point of View | 179 | ||
| False negative | 180 | ||
| Discussion | 180 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 180 | ||
| Case 1: Staging and Restaging Cervical Cancer | 180 | ||
| Case 2: Staging and Restaging Vulvar Cancer | 182 | ||
| Case 3: Staging Cervical Cancer | 183 | ||
| Case 4: Staging and Restaging Cervical Cancer | 184 | ||
| Case 5: Endometrial Cancer—Recurrence | 186 | ||
| Case 6: Recurrent Ovarian Cancer—Atypical Spinal Cord Metastasis | 186 | ||
| Case 7: Recurrent Ovarian Cancer | 187 | ||
| Case 8: Staging and Restaging Cervical Cancer | 188 | ||
| Case 9: Recurrent Vulvar Cancer | 189 | ||
| Case 10: Staging Cervical Cancer | 190 | ||
| Case 11: Bartholin Cyst Infection | 191 | ||
| Case 12: Endometrial Cancer—Recurrence | 191 | ||
| REFERENCES | 192 | ||
| 10 - Prostate Cancer | 199 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 199 | ||
| General1–3 | 199 | ||
| Early Clinical Symptoms4 | 199 | ||
| Primary Diagnostic Procedure3 | 199 | ||
| Standard Treatment5 | 199 | ||
| Prognostic Factors6 | 199 | ||
| Five-Year Survival7 | 199 | ||
| TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPICAL BEHAVIOR | 199 | ||
| Histopathology8,9 | 199 | ||
| Cancer Distribution10,11 | 199 | ||
| COMMON PATTERN OF SPREAD10,11 | 199 | ||
| Lymph Nodes | 199 | ||
| Distant Metastasis | 200 | ||
| TNM AND EAU TNM CLASSIFICATION12,13 | 200 | ||
| CLINICAL GUIDELINES FOR USING PET/CT13–15 | 200 | ||
| Primary Staging | 200 | ||
| Recurrent Disease | 200 | ||
| EVIDENCE-BASED VIEWPOINTS | 200 | ||
| CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW | 201 | ||
| PITFALLS24,25 | 201 | ||
| False Positive | 201 | ||
| False Negative | 201 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 202 | ||
| Fludeoxyglucose PET/CT | 202 | ||
| 11C-Acetate PET/CT | 202 | ||
| 18F-Fluoromethylcholine and 11C-Choline PET/CT | 202 | ||
| 68Ga-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen PET/CT | 203 | ||
| Anti1-Amino-3-18F-Fluorocyclobutane-1-Carboxylic Acid PET/CT | 203 | ||
| 18F-Sodium Fluoride PET/CT | 204 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 204 | ||
| Case 1: FDG PET/CT—Staging | 204 | ||
| Case 2: 18F-Choline PET/CT—Staging | 204 | ||
| Case 3: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT—Staging | 205 | ||
| Case 4: 18F-Choline PET/CT—Biochemical Recurrence | 205 | ||
| Case 5: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT—Biochemical Recurrence | 206 | ||
| Case 6: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT, Extensive Recurrent Metastatic Disease | 209 | ||
| Case 7: 18F-Choline PET/CT—Therapy Monitoring | 209 | ||
| Case 8: Bone Metastases—Functional Versus Anatomic Imaging | 210 | ||
| Case 9: 18F-Choline PET/CT—Treatment Monitoring, Flip-Flop Phenomenon | 210 | ||
| Case 10: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT—Metastatic Bone Disease | 211 | ||
| Case 11: 18F-Choline Versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT—Therapy Monitoring | 211 | ||
| Case 12: 18F-Choline Versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT—Staging | 213 | ||
| Case 13: 68Ga-PSMA Versus 18F-Choline PET/CT—Restaging | 213 | ||
| Case 14: 18F-Choline Versus 18F-NaF PET/CT—Bone Metastases | 213 | ||
| Case 15: 18F-NaF PET/CT Versus 68Ga-PSMA—Bone Metastases | 213 | ||
| REFERENCES | 217 | ||
| 11 - Melanoma | 221 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 221 | ||
| General1–3 | 221 | ||
| Early Clinical Symptoms1–3 | 221 | ||
| Primary Diagnostic Procedure1–3 | 221 | ||
| Standard Treatments4–7 | 221 | ||
| Treatment Approach Based on Disease Stage | 221 | ||
| Favorable Prognostic Factors8,9 | 221 | ||
| Five-Year Survival10 | 221 | ||
| TUMOR CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPICAL BEHAVIOR | 222 | ||
| Histopathology11 | 222 | ||
| Distribution and Localization12 | 222 | ||
| N-lymph nodes | 222 | ||
| M-distant metastases | 222 | ||
| TNM CLASSIFICATION13,14 | 222 | ||
| GUIDELINES13,15 | 222 | ||
| EVIDENCE-BASED VIEWPOINTS14,16–19 | 222 | ||
| Cost-Effectiveness20–22 | 222 | ||
| CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW | 223 | ||
| PITFALLS26 | 224 | ||
| False Positive | 224 | ||
| False Negative | 224 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 224 | ||
| Therapy Management | 225 | ||
| Prognostic Value | 225 | ||
| Radiopharmaceuticals Beyond 18F-FDG | 225 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 225 | ||
| Case 1: Staging, Distant Metastases | 225 | ||
| Case 2: Restaging and Follow-Up | 225 | ||
| Case 3: Treatment Evaluation | 228 | ||
| Case 4: Restaging | 228 | ||
| Case 5: Equivocal Findings on Conventional Imaging | 229 | ||
| REFERENCES | 231 | ||
| 12 - Brain Tumors | 235 | ||
| BACKGROUND | 235 | ||
| General1 | 235 | ||
| Clinical Signs/Symptoms3 | 235 | ||
| Diagnostic Procedures | 235 | ||
| Prognostic Factors7,10 | 235 | ||
| Survival11 | 235 | ||
| Histopathology12 | 236 | ||
| Evidence-based Recommendations | 237 | ||
| Cost-effectiveness | 237 | ||
| CLINICAL POINT OF VIEW | 237 | ||
| Suspected Disease | 237 | ||
| Imaging Tumor Extent and Biopsy Guidance | 237 | ||
| Tumor Grading and Prognosis | 237 | ||
| The Diagnosis of Tumor Recurrence/Progression | 237 | ||
| Treatment Monitoring | 237 | ||
| DISCUSSION | 237 | ||
| Radiopharmaceuticals | 237 | ||
| Imaging Tumor Extent and Biopsy Guidance | 238 | ||
| Tumor Grading and Prognosis | 239 | ||
| The Diagnosis of Tumor Recurrence/Progression | 240 | ||
| Treatment Monitoring | 240 | ||
| Alternative PET Tracers | 241 | ||
| Alternative MRI Approaches | 241 | ||
| TEACHING CASES | 241 | ||
| Case 1: Anaplastic Astrocytoma WHOGrade III | 241 | ||
| Case 2: Diffuse Astrocytoma WHO Grade II | 242 | ||
| Case 3: Radionecrosis | 242 | ||
| Case 4: Glioblastoma (FDOPA PET) | 243 | ||
| Case 5: Glioblastoma (WHO Grade IV) | 243 | ||
| Case 6: Recurrent Anaplastic Oligoastrocytoma (WHO Grade III) | 245 | ||
| Case 7: Brain Abscess | 245 | ||
| Case 8: Pseudoresponse During Antiangiogenic Therapy | 246 | ||
| Case 9: Recurrent Brain Metastasis | 246 | ||
| Case 10: Pitfall Epilepsy | 247 | ||
| CONCLUSION | 248 | ||
| REFERENCES | 248 | ||
| Index | 255 | ||
| A | 255 | ||
| B | 255 | ||
| C | 255 | ||
| D | 257 | ||
| E | 257 | ||
| F | 257 | ||
| G | 258 | ||
| H | 259 | ||
| I | 259 | ||
| L | 259 | ||
| M | 260 | ||
| N | 260 | ||
| O | 260 | ||
| P | 260 | ||
| R | 260 | ||
| S | 260 | ||
| T | 261 | ||
| U | 261 | ||
| V | 261 |