摘要
目的:分析探讨临床可疑肾实质来源肿瘤患者术前~(18)F-FDG PET/CT影像特点。方法:回顾性选取126例可疑肾实质来源恶性肾肿瘤患者,按照患者的年龄将其分为老年组(42例)和中青年组(84例)。所有患者按常规方法行~(18)F-FDG PET显像,通过勾画感兴趣区(ROI)方法计算原发、转移灶及正常肾实质标准化摄取值最大值(SUVmax)和原发灶靶本比(T/B),以病理结果为金标准进行统计分析。结果:1恶性114例,良性12例,~(18)F-FDG PET诊断敏感度、特异度、阳性和阴性预测值分别为37.72%、83.33%、95.56%和12.35%;2转移患者16例,原发灶大小及SUV均明显高于未转移患者,差异有统计学意义(Z=-4.12,Z=-4.26,P<0.001);3老年患者组原发灶大小、SUV及转移发生率与中青年组相比无显著差异;4透明细胞癌病灶~(18)F-FDG PET阳性率及代谢活性显著低于非透明细胞癌病灶,大小无差异。结论:SUVmax和T/B值均不适用于肾实质来源肿瘤诊断。原发灶代谢明显增高时,诊断恶性把握较大,且病理类型常为非透明细胞癌。肿瘤原发灶越大、代谢越高则越易发生转移。老年肾肿瘤患者的~(18)F-FDG PET影像特点与中青年组一致。
Objective: To conduct retrospective analysis on ~(18)F-FDG-PET imaging characteristics of patients suspicious for renal parenchyma neoplasm before surgery. Methods: One hundred and twenty six patients with suspicious for renal parenchyma tumor were enrolled and divided into aged group and middle-age group. All patients underwent routine ~(18)F-FDG-PET examination. Standard uptake value and T/B ratio were collected by drawing ROI in primary, metastasis lesions and normal renal parenchyma around the primary lesion. Pathological results were taken as golden criterion for further statistical analysis. Results:(1)One hundred and fourteen cases were diagnosed with malignant tumor and 12 with benign. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of ~(18)F-FDG PET/CT were 37.72%, 83.33%, 95.56% and 12.35% respectively.(2)The size and SUV of primary tumors in 16 cases with metastasis increased significantly to those without metastasis(Z=-4.12, Z=-4.26, P<0.001).(3)The size, SUV of primary tumors and incidence of metastasis of 41 old patients against middle-age group have not statistic significance.(4)The SUV of primary clear-cell carcinoma were decreased significantly than other pathological subtype of parenchyma neoplasm. No difference was found between clear cell carcinoma and other malignant tumor. Conclusion: SUVmax and T/B ratio are not suitable to renal parenchyma carcinoma diagnosis. Hyper-metabolism in primary tumor can guarantee malignant recognition and give clue for pathological type. With the increase of the primary tumor size and metabolism, the incidence of metastasis raise. These results provide probability that ~(18)F-FDG-PET can be used as prognosis method for this malignant group. The approaches of this study can be applied to middle age population with suspicious for renal parenchyma tumor.
引文
[1]Nigel C,Damian C,Confield S,et al.EAUGuidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma:The 2010Update[J].EuropeanU rology,2010,58(3):398-406.
[2]Federica M,Francesco B,Bosio G,et al.Role of F18-FDG-PET/CT in restaging patients affected by renal carcinoma[J].Nuclear Med Rev,2013,16(1):3-8.
[3]Chen JL,James L,Daniel E,et al.FDG-PETas a predictive biomarker for therapy with everolimus in metastatic renal cell cancer[J].Cancer Medicine,2013,2(4):545-552.
[4]霍力,周前,吴战宏,等.11C-Acetate PET显像在肾脏肿瘤诊断中的作用[J].中华核医学杂志,2006,26(4):85-88.
[5]Bird VG,Kanagarajah P,Morillo G,et al.Differentiation of oncocytoma and renal cell carcinoma in small renal masses(<4cm):the role of 4-phase computerized tomography[J].World J Urol,2011,29(6):787-792.
[6]Young JR,Margolis D,Sauk S,et al.Clear cell renal cell carcinoma:discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT[J].Radiology,2013,267(2):444-453.
[7]Shakher R,Gwynne W,Bolton DM,et al.Clinical role of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection and management of renal cell carcinoma[J].J Urol,2001,166(3):825-830.
[8]Kang DE,White RL,Zuger JH,et al.Clinical use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma[J].J Urol,2004,171(5):1806-1809.
[9]Ozulker T,Ozbek E,Oapacaci T,et al.Aprospective diagnostic accuracy study of F-18fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the evaluation of indeterminate renal masses[J].Nucl Med Commum,2011,32(4):265-272.
[10]Aysel S,Ahmet A,Silva FB,et al.Associations between the standardized uptake of 18F-FDGPET/CT and demographic,clinical,pathological,radiological factors in lung cancer[J].Int J Exp Med,2015,8(9):15794-15800.
[11]Qiao H,Wang L,Li D,et al.The effect of tumor size on the imaging diagnosis:A study based on simulation[J].Biomed Mater Eng,2014,24(6):3129-3136.
[12]Khalaf M,Abdel-Nabi H,Baker J,et al.Relation between nodule size and 18F-FDG-PET SUV for malignant and benign pulmonary nodules[J].J Hematol Oncol,2008,1:13.
