Abstract
Positron Emission Tomography, introduced almost three decades ago by Phelps and Hoffman,1 has only recently been accepted as the most important and innovative tool for cancer imaging. The diagnostic and prognostic accuracy of PET imaging with F-18 deoxyglucose (FDG) ranges from 80–90% for many cancers and is superior to anatomical imaging. However, PET imaging is limited in its ability to assign molecular abnormalities to specific anatomical structures. This limitation has been recently overcome by the introduction of “in-line”, “hybrid” PET/CT systems that have dramatically increased the visibility of molecular imaging within the radiology and oncology community. PET/CT has introduced radiologists to the concept and importance of molecular imaging and helps to conceptualize the inherent limitations of size criteria for defining anatomical abnormalities as malignant or benign. The molecular information provided by PET enables radiologists for the first time to clearly characterize anatomical abnormalities as cancerous or not. On the other hand, molecular imaging benefits from the anatomical framework provided by CT. Hyper-metabolic lesions can now be assigned to specific anatomical structures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Phelps ME, Hoffman EJ, Mullani NA, Ter-Pogossian MM. Application of annihilation coincidence detection to transaxial reconstruction tomography. J Nucl Med. 1975;16(3):210–224.
Czernin J, Phelps ME. Positron emission tomography scanning: current and future applications. Annu Rev Med. 2002;53:89–112.
Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M, Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L, Nutt R. A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(8):1369–1379.
Townsend DW, Cherry SR. Combining anatomy and function: the path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(10):1968–1974.
Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Staging of nonsmall-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(25):2500–2507.
Israel O, Keidar Z, Bar-Shalom R, Gaitini D, Beck D, Amit A. Hybrid PET/CT imaging with FDG in management of patients with gynecologic malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(5 Suppl):129P.
Antoch G, Stattaus J, Nemat AT, Marnitz S, Beyer T, Kuehl H, Bockisch A, Debatin JF, Freudenberg LS. Non-small cell lung cancer: dual-modality PET/CT in preoperative staging. Radiology. 2003;229(2):526–533.
Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(11):1797–1803.
Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P, Beyer T, Jentzen W, Muller SP, Gorges R, Nowrousian MR, Bockisch A, Debatin JF. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;in press.
Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW, Buck A, von Schulthess GK. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with inline PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology. 2002;225(2):575–581.
Fukui MB, Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC. PET/CT imaging in recurrent head and neck cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2003;24(3):157–163.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Czernin, J., Dahlbom, M., Ratib, O., Schiepers, C., Yap, C. (2004). Introduction. In: Atlas of PET/CT Imaging in Oncology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18517-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18517-5_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-62141-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-18517-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive