Prognostic Value of (18) F-FDG PET-CT in XXXX : Is Dynamic Scanning Helpful?

@entity1 @entity5 @entity189
Objectives. To evaluate the differences in prognostic values of static and dynamic PET-CT in @entity189 ( @entity189 ). Material and Methods. Forty-five @entity1 who had static scan were recruited. Sixteen had dynamic scan. The primary lesions were delineated from standardized uptake value (SUV) maps from static scan and K i maps from dynamic scan. The average follow-up lasted for 34 months. The @entity1 who died or those with recurrence/residual disease were considered "poor outcome"; otherwise they were considered "good outcome." Fisher's exact test and ROC analysis were used to evaluate the prognostic value of various factors. Results. @entity5 volume thresholded by 40% of maximal SUV (VOLSUV40) significantly predicted treatment outcome (p = 0.024) in the whole cohort. In 16 @entity1 with dynamic scan, all parameters by dynamic scan were insignificant in predicting the outcome. The combination of maximal SUV, maximal K i , VOLSUV40, and VOL K i 37 (the @entity5 volume thresholded by 37% maximal K i ) achieved the highest predicting accuracy for treatment outcome with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 100% in these 16 @entity1 ; however this improvement compared to VOLSUV40 was insignificant. Conclusion. @entity5 volume from static scan is useful in @entity189 prognosis. However, the role of dynamic scanning was not justified in this small cohort.
