Clinical application of positron emission tomography in designing radiation fields in non-small cell lung cancer patients

  • Authors:
    • Alexander Lin
    • Charles Wood
    • Christine Hill-Kayser
    • Rosemarie Mick
    • Larry Kaiser
    • James Metz
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: September 29, 2010     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2010.153
  • Pages: 1027-1033
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

There is significant interest in incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation therapy planning, although limited data exist that separately consider its diagnostic accuracy with respect to the primary tumor, hilum and mediastinum. This study evaluates the accuracy of PET planning by region of interest. Between January 2003 and July 2005, 351 patients with a pre-operative PET study underwent surgical resection. Of this population, 257 (73%) patients with a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer were evaluated. PET study findings regarding the suspected primary tumor site, ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum were correlated with surgical pathology for determination of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). The accuracy of the primary site (95%), ipsilateral hilum (80%) and mediastinum (84%) was relatively high. The NPV of the ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum was also high (92 and 86%, respectively). However, the PPV of the ipsilateral hilum (31%) and mediastinum (75%) was lower. PET accuracy evaluating bronchoalveolar primary tumors was lower vs. other histologies (86 vs. 96%, p=0.02), although there was no difference with regard to the hilum or mediastinum. PET scanning may be an important tool in designing radiation treatment fields for lung cancer when combined with other imaging modalities. However, caution must be exercised when evaluating lymph node regions, as the PPV is not as high for the ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum as for the primary tumor. The NPV is high for nodal regions and may help with the exclusion of large treatment volumes in selected cases.

Introduction

Positron emission tomography (PET) continues to gain acceptance as a valuable tool in the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (14). Its sensitivity and specificity with respect to the detection of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules have been estimated at 97 and 78%, respectively (5), and PET has been shown to be superior to computed tomography (CT) in staging of the mediastinum (621). There has also been much interest in the incorporation of PET into radiation treatment planning, particularly with the opportunities afforded by 3-D conformal radiation therapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy, which improve dose conformality and allow for dose escalation. The utilization of PET imaging in treatment planning could conceivably alter target volumes in two ways: exclusion of suspicious, but PET-negative, tissue volumes and inclusion of previously undetected tumor burden (22). Classically, target volumes in NSCLC include a combination of the primary site, with or without the ipsilateral hilum and/or mediastinum. While many studies have been conducted which evaluate the accuracy of PET in lung cancer, few have separated the data with respect to these areas, limiting the confidence with which PET can be employed in radiation planning. For this reason, this study was performed to evaluate the accuracy of PET imaging according to these regions of interest.

Materials and methods

A University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PET based on surgical pathology confirmation. Between January 2003 and July 2005, 351 patients with suspicion of lung cancer underwent pre-operative PET imaging followed by surgical resection. The dates listed were based on the date of surgery, and all surgical procedures were performed at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. From this population, 257 (73%) patients with a pathologic diagnosis of NSCLC who did not undergo neoadjuvant therapy were assessed. Pre-operative clinical stage was estimated based on pre-operative PET and CT imaging via the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System (6th edition) (23). Postoperative pathologic stage was based on surgical pathologic findings.

PET findings were documented separately with respect to the primary site, ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum. The PET results were then correlated with surgical pathology at the time of resection. Measures, including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), were determined. PET findings were scored as positive, suspicious or negative based solely on the original radiology report, and suspicious findings were ultimately considered positive as there would be a tendency to treat those regions of suspicion. A secondary radiology review of the original PET films was not conducted by the investigators, as it was decided to reflect utilization of PET reports and films in a typical radiation oncology clinic. PET studies were performed at both academic (30%) and community (70%) centers, and patients did not undergo combined PET/CT studies.

Statistical analysis

The χ2 (24) and Fisher's exact (24) tests were employed to test for associations of PET accuracy with clinical and surgical factors. All tests were two-sided, and statistical significance was defined as p≤0.05. Concordance between clinical staging and pathologic staging was determined via a weighted Kappa statistic (24). Statistical analyses were performed with Statistical Package for Social Sciences statistical software (version 11.5 for Windows; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and StatXact statistical software (version 5.0 for Windows; Cytel Software Corporation, Cambridge, MA, USA).

Results

The characteristics of the patients included in the study are summarized in Table I. The median patient age was 68 years (range 35–86), and most presented with early clinical stage disease (63% stage I and 14% stage II). Similar numbers of males and females were included, and the majority of patients were Caucasian (90%).

Table I.

Baseline clinical factors of all study patients (n=257).

Table I.

Baseline clinical factors of all study patients (n=257).

Clinical factorNo.%
Gender
  Male13151
  Female12649
Age (years)
  ≤6510541
  >6515259
  Median (range)68 (35–86)
Race
  Caucasian23290
  Non-caucasian218
  Unknown42
Clinical T stage
  T031
  T115460
  T27830
  T331
  T4197
Clinical N stage
  N018271
  N13413
  N23313
  N383
Clinical stage
  IA11846
  IB4317
  IIA177
  IIB177
  IIIA249
  IIIB229
  IV166
Primary tumor location
  Left lung10440
  Right lung14657
  Not applicable/unknown73

A diagram demonstrating the pathologic evaluation of the study patients is listed in Fig. 1. Nearly all patients underwent definitive surgical resection (91%), with the remainder undergoing mediastinal sampling alone. The characteristics of the patients who underwent definitive resection are summarized in Table II. The median time between pre-operative PET and definitive resection was 41 days (range 2–333), and a majority of patients underwent lobectomy (77%). Most tumors were either adenocarcinoma (45%) or squamous cell carcinoma (30%), and 92% of resected primary tumors were >1 cm on pathologic measurement. Pre-operative clinical measurement of tumor diameter could not be documented, as primary tumor size was not always noted on the original radiology report.

Table II.

Characteristics of definitive resection patients (n=233).

Table II.

Characteristics of definitive resection patients (n=233).

No.%
Time from CT/PET to surgery (days)
  ≤309541
  >3013859
  Median (range)41 (2–333)
Surgical procedure
  Pneumonectomy94
  Bilobectomy73
  Lobectomy18077
  Wedge resection3013
  Other73
Pathologic primary tumor size (cm)
  ≤1198
  >121492
  Median (range)2.5 (0.5–13.5)
Histology
  Squamous7030
  Adenocarcinoma10545
  Large cell94
  Bronchoalveolar3616
  Poorly differentiated125
  Non-small cell1<1

The accuracy and prediction measures for the study patients with respect to PET imaging are shown in Table III. The accuracy of PET imaging was relatively high at the primary site (95%), ipsilateral hilum (80%) and mediastinum (84%). Although the specificity of the hilum (84%) and mediastinum (95%) was likewise high, the sensitivity with regard to both was lower than the primary site (50 and 49%, respectively, vs. 95%). The specificity of the primary site was not evaluated, as all patients had pathologic evidence of disease at the primary site. The negative prediction measures of the ipsilateral hilum (92%) and mediastinum (86%) were again high, but, as with sensitivity, the positive prediction measures of the ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum were lower (31 and 75%, respectively). The PPV and NPV of the primary site were not calculated, as all patients had pathologic evidence of disease at the primary site.

Table III.

Accuracy and prediction measures of PET findings vs. pathology findings.

Table III.

Accuracy and prediction measures of PET findings vs. pathology findings.

A, Correlation of PET to pathology findings by subsite.
Pathology finding
+Total
Primary
  PET finding
   +2190219
   −12012
   Total2310231
Hilum
  PET finding
   +132942
   −13155168
   Total26184210
Mediastinum
  PET finding
   +27936
   −28172200
   Total55181236
B, Accuracy of PET by subsite.
SitePET accuracy measureNo. with findingTotal no.%
Primary (n=231)
Sensitivity21923194.8
Specificity00NEa
Overall accuracy21923194.8
Hilum (n=210)
Sensitivity132650.0
Specificity15518484.2
Overall accuracy16821080.0
Mediastinum (n=236)
Sensitivity275549.1
Specificity17218195.0
Overall accuracy19923684.3
C, Predictive value of PET by subsite.
SitePET prediction measureNo. with findingTotal no.%
Primary (n=231)
PPV219219NEa
NPV012NEb
Hilum (n=210)
PPV134231.0
NPV15516892.3
Mediastinum (n=236)
PPV273675.0
NPV17220086.0

a All cases were positive;

b No cases were negative.

{ label (or @symbol) needed for fn[@id='tfn3-etm-01-06-1027'] } NE, not evaluated.

Additionally, association tests were performed between PET accuracy and various clinical and pathologic factors. A comparison of PET accuracy with respect to bronchoalveolar tumors is shown in Table IV. There was decreased PET accuracy for bronchoalveolar primary tumors vs. other histologies (86 vs. 96%, p=0.02), but no difference was noted with regards to accuracy within the ipsilateral hilum (85 vs. 79%, p=0.64) or mediastinum (94 vs. 85%, p=0.27).

Table IV.

PET overall accuracy for bronchoalveolar tumors vs. other histologies.

Table IV.

PET overall accuracy for bronchoalveolar tumors vs. other histologies.

SiteBrochoalveolar
Other histologies
P-value
Pathology
Pathology
++
Primary
  PET+3101880
  PET5070
  Accuracy31/36 (86%)188/195 (96%)0.02
Hilum
  PET+041325
  PET12812127
  Accuracy28/33 (85%)140/177 (79%)0.64
Mediastinum
  PET+01128
  PET13019142
  Accuracy30/32 (94%)154/181 (85%)0.27

PET accuracy within the ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum in patients in whom PET accurately evaluated the primary tumor was compared to those in whom the primary tumor was inaccurately evaluated. No difference was found in accuracy at either site. In the ipsilateral hilum, PET was accurate in 79% of patients with accurate PET at the primary site vs. 100% in those with false negative PET of the primary site (p=0.36). In the mediastinum, PET was accurate in 86% of patients with accurate PET at the primary site vs. 100% in those with false negative PET of the primary site (p=0.61).

PET accuracy at the primary site was decreased in primary tumors ≤1 cm on pathologic evaluation vs. those >1 cm (78 vs. 96%, p=0.01), and there was no difference in PET accuracy at either the primary site (93 vs. 96%, p=0.44), ipsilateral hilum (75 vs. 81%, p=0.44) or mediastinum (82 vs. 85%, p=0.73) when comparing studies interpreted at academic centers (n=42) vs. those interpreted at community facilities (n=215).

Table V depicts concordance between clinical and pathologic staging of patients in the study. Thirty-five percent of patients were upstaged at surgery, 51% had no change in stage at surgery and 14% were downstaged at surgery. A weighted Kappa analysis demonstrated statistical concordance between clinical and pathologic staging (p<0.0001).

Table V.

Concordance between clinical and pathologic staging.

Table V.

Concordance between clinical and pathologic staging.

A, Comparison between clinical and pathologic stage.
Clinical stagePathologic stage
IA (n=67)IB (n=57)IIA + IB (n=34)IIIA (n=27)IIIB (n=18)IV (n=12)
IA (n=108)561915396
IB (n=42)2265630
IIA + IIB (n=31)5712700
IIIA (n=13)030712
IIIB (n=13)312340
IV (n=8)110114
B, Change in staging based on operative findings.
Pathologic vs. clinical stagingNo.%
↑ Stage
  Pathologic stage > clinical stage (to the right of the bold area)7635
= Stage
  Pathologic stage = clinical stage (bold area)10951
↓ Stage
  Pathologic stage < clinical stage (below bold area)3014

[i] Weighted Kappa = 0.36 (95% CI 0.21–0.50); p<0.0001.

Discussion

Radiation treatment planning for lung cancer has evolved with the introduction of new diagnostic and imaging modalities and with increasing capacity for delivering conformal radiotherapy. Traditional radiation portals typically included the mediastinum and ipsilateral hilum electively, in addition to the primary tumor. Newer techniques omit elective coverage of the entire mediastinum and ipsilateral hilum, treating instead an ‘involved field’, which limits the treatment portals to only the primary tumor and nodal areas deemed to be positive on pre-treatment staging and evaluation. Single institution studies of involved field radiation suggest that elective nodal failures are rare, occurring in approximately 6% of patients (25,26); this may lead to the underestimation of the true incidence of elective nodal relapse, as isolated nodal relapses are rare and nodal relapses in the setting of hematogenous metastases are typically excluded. A phase III randomized trial of 200 patients (in whom staging did not include PET) comparing elective nodal radiation and involved field radiation demonstrated no difference in overall survival between the groups at 5 years (27). However, a potential limitation of involved field radiation is in the accuracy of staging and diagnostic studies to detect pathologic disease. PET is a modality which might provide such enhanced target delineation. While the role of PET or PET/CT in addition to conventional workup to prevent unnecessary surgery has been previously studied in randomized trials (2830), the role of PET in radiation field design is an equally relevant, yet less examined, issue. This study sought to evaluate PET imaging by region of interest as it applies to radiation treatment planning in NSCLC.

To our knowledge, the present study constitutes one of the largest published series comparing PET to surgical pathologic data. We analyzed PET accuracy at several distinct sites relevant for radiation treatment planning: primary tumor, ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum. We found a relatively high overall accuracy of PET with regard to staging of the primary site (95%), ipsilateral hilum (80%) and mediastinum (84%), which is similar to other published series investigating PET-based staging and higher than the accuracy rates obtained with CT staging (17,18,20,21). Even with bronchoalveolar tumors, where PET demonstrated decreased accuracy and instances where the primary site was inaccurately evaluated, PET retained a high accuracy in the ipsilateral hilum and mediastinum. This supports the use of PET in combination with other imaging and staging modalities as a potentially important tool for radiation field design.

The specificity and negative predictive values associated with PET evaluation of nodal regions from our study were relatively high. These findings could be utilized in deciding to treat with involved field radiation techniques, excluding large, elective treatment volumes in selected cases. Conversely, the sensitivity and positive predictive values noted in our study were relatively low; however, these results should be interpreted with caution and may simply reflect the smaller numbers of patients with positive hilar and mediastinal disease, as the majority had early stage disease.

It is important to note that clinical and pathologic stage were in agreement only half of the time, with 35% of patients being upstaged at the time of surgery. Previous studies have reported a level of agreement between 35 and 55% for clinical and pathologic staging (3135), with deterioration in agreement as stage increases (31). Subclinical, microscopic disease, not visualized on CT or PET, often accounts for this upstaging. Nomori et al (16), in a study of 80 patients comparing pre-operative PET and CT vs. surgical pathology, found that PET was unable to distinguish foci of disease less than 4 mm and that 32% of all resected lymph nodes with disease involvement had foci of disease less than 4 mm. The presence of subclinical disease involvement illustrates the limitations of clinical staging in NSCLC, especially in those treated with definitive radiation therapy. The use of involved field radiation, with target delineation based on PET and CT alone, could therefore potentially lead to erroneous underdosing or non-treatment of microscopic disease foci. Incorporation of pathologic assessment of lymph nodes, via mediastinoscopy or endobronchial ultrasound, in addition to conventional staging with imaging and PET, may improve the overall accuracy of staging and further assist in radiation treatment planning.

There are strengths and limitations to the present study. More than three-quarters of the patients had clinical stage I or II disease, which may account for the lower than expected sensitivity and PPV for PET detection of lymph node involvement. Further evaluation of PET accuracy in more advanced stage patients is warranted, as this would better reflect the typical lung cancer patient referred for definitive radiation therapy. Additionally, this study focused specifically on the role of PET alone, whereas PET/CT is now more commonly used for staging. Despite these limitations, our results constitute one of the largest collected series on PET staging, and the study presented here is one of the few examining accuracy by specific disease subsites. In addition, our findings that there was no compromise in accuracy of lymph node staging, even with bronchoalveolar histology or when PET inaccurately staged the primary site, are novel to our knowledge.

In conclusion, PET is a useful tool in the clinical assessment and staging of lung cancer, and should be incorporated as part of standard staging. With respect to radiation treatment planning, it is helpful in delineating disease-affected sites and in determining which areas to incorporate and which to exclude in the radiation portals. However, given the rates of upstaging observed between clinical and pathologic staging and the risk of subclinical disease involvement, caution must be exercised during the delineation of limited fields, and pathologic assessment of nodes should be performed whenever possible. Lung cancer remains one of the most common causes of cancer-related death in both men and women, and local failure is a common occurrence. Refinements in target delineation, radiation planning and delivery are potential avenues by which outcomes may be improved, which will ultimately require the incorporation of multimodal staging evaluations, including PET.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Eli Glatstein for his continuing guidance and mentorship, without which this manuscript would not have been possible.

References

1. 

Albes JM, Lietzenmayer R, Schott U, Schülen E, Wehrmann M and Ziemer G: Improvement of non-small-cell lung cancer staging by means of positron emission tomography. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 47:42–47. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2. 

Bury T, Paulus P, Dowlati A, Corhay JL, Weber T, Ghaye B, Schoffers J, Limet R, Albert A, Rigo P and Radermecker M: Staging of the mediastinum: value of positron emission tomography imaging in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J. 9:2560–2564. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3. 

Coleman RE: PET in lung cancer. J Nucl Med. 40:814–820. 1999.PubMed/NCBI

4. 

Sachs S and Bilfinger TV: The impact of positron emission tomography on clinical decision making in a university-based multidisciplinary lung cancer practice. Chest. 128:698–703. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5. 

Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE and Owens DK: Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 285:914–924. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6. 

Gould MK, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Maclean CC, Demas AN, Shigemitsu H, Chan JK and Owens DK: Test performance of positron emission tomography and computed tomography for mediastinal staging in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 139:879–892. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7. 

Toloza EM, Harpole L and McCrory DC: Noninvasive staging of non-small cell lung cancer: a review of the current evidence. Chest. 123:S137–S146. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8. 

Sasaki M, Ichiya Y, Kuwabara Y, Akashi Y, Yoshida T, Fukumura T, Murayama S, Ishida T, Sugio K and Masuda K: The usefulness of FDG positron emission tomography for the detection of mediastinal lymph node metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a comparative study with X-ray computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 23:741–747. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9. 

Sazon DA, Santiago SM, Soo Hoo GW, Khonsary A, Brown C, Mandelkern M, Blahd W and Williams AJ: Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 153:417–421. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10. 

Vansteenkiste JF and Stroobants SG: The role of positron emission tomography with 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in respiratory oncology. Eur Respir J. 17:802–820. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11. 

Valk PE, Pounds TR, Hopkins DM, Haseman MK, Hofer GA, Greiss HB, Myers RW and Lutrin CL: Staging non-small cell lung cancer by whole-body positron emission tomographic imaging. Ann Thorac Surg. 60:1573–1582. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12. 

Vansteenkiste JF, Stroobants SG, De Leyn PR, Dupont PJ, Bogaert J, Maes A, Deneffe GJ, Nackaerts KL, Verschakelen JA, Lerut TE, Mortelmans LA and Demedts MG: Lymph node staging in non-small-cell lung cancer with FDG-PET scan: a prospective study on 690 lymph node stations from 68 patients. J Clin Oncol. 16:2142–2149. 1998.PubMed/NCBI

13. 

Patz EF Jr, Lowe VJ, Goodman PC and Herndon J: Thoracic nodal staging with PET imaging with 18FDG in patients with bronchogenic carcinoma. Chest. 108:1617–1621. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14. 

Pieterman RM, van Putten JW, Meuzelaar JJ, Mooyaart EL, Vaalburg W, Koëter GH, Fidler V, Pruim J and Groen HJ: Preoperative staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with positron-emission tomography. N Engl J Med. 343:254–261. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15. 

Scott WJ, Gobar LS, Terry JD, Dewan NA and Sunderland JJ: Mediastinal lymph node staging of non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective comparison of computed tomography and positron emission tomography. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 111:642–648. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16. 

Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, Naruke T, Suemasu K and Uno K: The size of metastatic foci and lymph nodes yielding false-negative and false-positive lymph node staging with positron emission tomorgraphy in patients with lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 127:1087–1092. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17. 

Steinert HC, Hauser M, Allemann F, Engel H, Berthold T, von Schulthess GK and Weder W: Non-small cell lung cancer: nodal staging with FDG PET versus CT with correlative lymph node mapping and sampling. Radiology. 202:441–446. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18. 

Wahl RL, Quint LE, Greenough RL, Meyer CR, White RI and Orringer MB: Staging of mediastinal non-small cell lung cancer with FDG PET, CT, and fusion images: preliminary prospective evaluation. Radiology. 191:371–377. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19. 

Hagberg RC, Segall GM, Stark P, Burdon TA and Pompili MF: Characterization of pulmonary nodules and mediastinal staging of bronchogenic carcinoma with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 12:92–97. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar

20. 

Gupta NC, Tamim WJ, Graeber GG, Bishop HA and Hobbs GR: Mediastinal lymph node sampling following positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in lung cancer staging. Chest. 120:521–527. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21. 

Dunagan D, Chin R Jr, McCain T, Case L, Harkness B, Oaks T and Haponik E: Staging by positron emission tomography predicts survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Chest. 119:333–339. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22. 

Lavrenkov K, Partridge M, Cook G and Brada M: Positron emission tomography for target volume definition in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 77:1–4. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

23. 

Greene FL; American Joint Committee on Cancer, American Cancer Society: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 6th edition. Springer-Verlag; New York: 2002, View Article : Google Scholar

24. 

Fleiss JL: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc; New York: 1981

25. 

Bradley JD, Wahab S, Lockett MA, Perez CA and Purdy JA: Elective nodal failures are uncommon in medically inoperable patients with stage I non-small-cell lung carcinoma treated with limited radio-therapy fields. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 56:342–347. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26. 

Rosenzweig KE, Sura S, Jackson A and Yorke E: Involved-field radiation therapy for inoperable non small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 25:5557–5561. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27. 

Yuan S, Sun X, Li M, Yu J, Ren R, Yu Y, Li J, Liu X, Wang R, Li B, Kong L and Yin Y: A randomized study of involved-field irradiation versus elective nodal irradiation in combination with concurrent chemotherapy for inoperable stage III nonsmall cell lung cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 30:239–244. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28. 

Van Tinteren H, Hoekstra OS, Smit EF, van den Bergh JH, Schreurs AJ, Stallaert RA, van Velthoven PC, Comans EF, Diepenhorst FW, Verboom P, van Mourik JC, Postmus PE, Boers M and Teule GJ: Effectiveness of positron emission tomography in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected non-small-cell lung cancer: the PLUS multi-centre randomized trial. Lancet. 359:1388–1393. 2002.PubMed/NCBI

29. 

Viney RC, Boyer MJ, King MT, Kenny PM, Pollicino CA, McLean JM, McCaughan BC and Fulham MJ: Randomized controlled clinical trial of the role of positron emission tomography in the management of stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 22:2357–2362. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30. 

Fischer B, Lassen U, Mortensen J, et al: Preoperative staging of lung cancer with combined PET-CT. N Engl J Med. 361:32–39. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31. 

López-Encuentra A, García-Luján R, Rivas JJ, Rodríguez-Rodríguez J, Torres-Lanza J and Varela-Simo G; Bronchogenic Carcinoma Cooperative Group of the Spanish Society of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery: Comparison between clinical and pathologic staging in 2,994 cases of lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 79:974–979. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

32. 

Fernando HC and Goldstraw P: The accuracy of clinical evaluative intrathoracic staging in lung cancer as assessed by postsurgical pathologic staging. Cancer. 65:2503–2506. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33. 

Gdeedo A, van Schil P, Corthouts B, van Mieghem F, van Meerbeeck J and van Marck E: Comparison of imaging TNM [(i)TNM] and pathological TNM [pTNM] in staging of bronchogenic carcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 12:224–227. 1997.

34. 

Bülzebruck H, Bopp R, Drings P, Bauer E, Krysa S, Probst G, van Kaick G, Müller KM and Vogt-Moykopf I: New aspects in the staging of lung cancer. Prospective validation of the International Union Against Cancer TNM classification. Cancer. 70:1102–1110. 1992.PubMed/NCBI

35. 

Bülzebruck H, Drings P, Kayser K, Schulz V, Tuengerthal S and Vogt-Moykopf I: Classification of lung cancer: first experiences with the new TNM classification (4th edition). Eur Respir J. 4:1197–1206. 1991.PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

November-December 2010
Volume 1 Issue 6

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Lin A, Wood C, Hill-Kayser C, Mick R, Kaiser L and Metz J: Clinical application of positron emission tomography in designing radiation fields in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Exp Ther Med 1: 1027-1033, 2010
APA
Lin, A., Wood, C., Hill-Kayser, C., Mick, R., Kaiser, L., & Metz, J. (2010). Clinical application of positron emission tomography in designing radiation fields in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 1, 1027-1033. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2010.153
MLA
Lin, A., Wood, C., Hill-Kayser, C., Mick, R., Kaiser, L., Metz, J."Clinical application of positron emission tomography in designing radiation fields in non-small cell lung cancer patients". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 1.6 (2010): 1027-1033.
Chicago
Lin, A., Wood, C., Hill-Kayser, C., Mick, R., Kaiser, L., Metz, J."Clinical application of positron emission tomography in designing radiation fields in non-small cell lung cancer patients". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 1, no. 6 (2010): 1027-1033. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2010.153