purchase microsoft office 2008 online buy adobe photoshop cs3 serial number http://isaac.lsu.edu/class_2011_fall/upl... adobe dreamweaver cs4 cost buy powerpoint product key to click buy apple final cut microsoft office price comparison http://isaac.lsu.edu/class_2011_fall/upl... purchase mathworks buy windows server 2003 r2 enterprise here best price adobe cs4 web standard buy filemaker pro 10 mac here purchase pinnacle studio online buy ms money 2005 international best price microsoft office 2010 home and business best price adobe premiere elements 8 best price microsoft project 2003 adobe illustrator buy online to click buy windows 7 32 bit or 64 bit buy office 2010 starter abbyy finereader student discount here to click adobe contribute pricing cheap dreamweaver cs5 mac buying microsoft office 2003 licenses

The lack of evidence for PET or PET/CT surveillance of patients with treated lymphoma, colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Wed, Sep 4, 2013

Oral Cancer News

Source: jnm.snmjournals.org
Authors: Kamal Patel et al

PET and PET/CT are widely used for surveillance of patients after cancer treatments. We conducted a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of PET and PET/CT used for surveillance in several cancers.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases from 1996 to March 2012 for English-language studies of PET or PET/CT used for surveillance of patients with lymphoma, colorectal cancer, or head and neck cancer. We included prospective or retrospective studies that reported test accuracy and comparative studies that assessed clinical impact.

Results: Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria: 6 lymphoma (n = 767 patients), 2 colorectal cancer (n = 96), and 4 head and neck cancer (n = 194). All studies lacked a uniform definition of surveillance and scan protocols. Half the studies were retrospective, and a third were rated as low quality. The majority reported sensitivities and specificities in the range of 90%–100%, although several studies reported lower results. The only randomized controlled trial, a colorectal cancer study with 65 patients in the surveillance arm, reported earlier detection of recurrences with PET and suggested improved clinical outcomes.

Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the clinical impact of PET or PET/CT surveillance for these cancers. The lack of standard definitions for surveillance, heterogeneous scanning protocols, and inconsistencies in reporting test accuracy preclude making an informed judgment on the value of PET for this potential indication.

Kamal Patel, Nira Hadar, Jounghee Lee, Barry A. Siegel, Bruce E. Hillner and Joseph Lau
Source: Journal of Nuclear Medicine September 1, 2013 vol. 54 no. 9 1518-1527

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
, , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.