Computed tomography, positron emission tomography, positron emission tomography/computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for staging of limited pleural mesothelioma: Initial results

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 43, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 737-744

  Plathow, Christian ^a,d   Staab, Adrian ^c   Schmaehl, Astrid ^b   Aschoff, Philip ^a   Zuna, Ivan ^a   Pfannenberg, Christina ^a   Peter, Schlemmer Heinz ^a   Eschmann, Susanne ^a   Klopp, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b Clinic for Thoracic Diseases   (Germany)

^c PAUL SCHERRER INSTITUTE   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging; Mesothelioma; PET CT; Positron emission tomography CT; Staging

Indexed keywords

ASBESTOS; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; IOPROMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PLEURA CANCER; PLEURA MESOTHELIOMA; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EVALUATION; INSTRUMENTATION; KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS; MESOTHELIOMA; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY;

AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; KARNOFSKY PERFORMANCE STATUS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MESOTHELIOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 58149392648     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181817b3d     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Price B, Ware A. Mesothelioma trends in the United States: an update based on Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program data for 1973 through 2003. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;2:107-112.
2. Weill H, Hughes JM, Churg AM. Changing trends in US mesothelioma incidence. Occup Environ Med. 2004;5:438-441.
3. Martino D, Pass HI. Integration of multimodality approaches in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Clin Lung Cancer. 2004;5:290-298.
4. Aisner J. Current approach to malignant mesothelioma of the pleura. Chest. 1995;6(suppl 3):32S-44S.
5. International Mesothelioma Interest Group. A proposed new international TNM staging system for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Chest. 1995;108:1122-1128.
6. Khalil MY, Mapa M, Shin HJ, et al. Advances in the management of malignant mesothelioma. Curr Oncol Rep. 2003;4:334-341.
7. Sugarbaker DJ, Flores RM, Jaklitsch MT, et al. Resection margins, extrapleural nodal status, and cell type determine postoperative long-term survival in trimodality therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma: results in 183 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;l:54-63: discussion 63-65.
8. Ahamad A, Stevens CW, Smythe WR, et al. Promising early local control of malignant pleural mesothelioma following postoperative intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to the chest. Cancer J. 2003;6: 476-484.
9. Nowak AK, Lake RA, Kindler HL, et al. New approaches for mesothelioma: biologics, vaccines, gene therapy, and other novel agents. Semin Oncol. 2002;1:82-96.
10. Budde LS, Hanna NH. Pemetrexed (Alimta): improving outcomes in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2004;3:361-368.
11. Zellos LS, Sugarbaker DJ. Multimodality treatment of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma. Semin Oncol. 2002;1:41-50.
12. Yoshino I, Yamaguchi M, Okamoto T, et al. Multimodal treatment for resectable epithelial type malignant pleural mesothelioma. World J Surg Oncol. 2004;l:11.
13. Rusch VW. A proposed new international TNM staging system for malignant pleural mesothelioma from the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Lung Cancer. 1996; 1:1-12.
14. Marom EM, Erasmus JJ, Pass HI, et al. The role of imaging in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Semin Oncol. 2002;l:26-35.
15. Patz EF Jr, Shaffer K, Piwnica-Worms DR, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: value of CT and MR imaging in predicting resectability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;5:961-966.
16. Heelan RT, Rusch VW, Begg CB, et al. Staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma: comparison of CT and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;4:1039-1047.
17. Nanni C, Castellucci P, Farsad M, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET for evaluating malignant pleural mesothelioma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2004;2:149-154.
18. Flores RM, Akhurst T, Gonen M, et al. Positron emission tomography defines metastatic disease but not locoregional disease in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thomc Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 1: 11-16.
19. Erasmus JJ, Truong MT, Smythe WR, et al. Integrated computed tomography-positron emission tomography in patients with potentially resectable malignant pleural mesothelioma: staging implications. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;6:1364-1370.
20. Vogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21: 2636-2644.
21. Schafer JF, Vollmar J, Schick F, et al. Detection of pulmonary nodules with breath-hold magnetic resonance imaging in comparison with computed tomography. Rofo. 2005;177:41-49.
22. Both M, Schultze J, Reuter M, et al. Fast T1- and T2-weighted pulmonary MR-imaging in patients with bronchial carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53:478-488.
23. Pfannenberg C, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, et al. Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:36-44.
24. Pfannenberg C, Aschoff P, Brechtel K, et al. Value of contrast-enhanced multi-phase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol. 2007;80:437-445.
25. Brechtel K, Klein M, Vogel M, et al. Optimized contrast-enhanced CT protocols for diagnostic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT: technical aspects of single-phase versus multiphase CT imaging. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:470-476.
26. Weber MA, Bock M, Plathow C, et al. Asbestos-related pleural disease: value of dedicated magnetic resonance imaging techniques. Invest Radiol. 2004;39:554-564.
27. Glazer GM, Gross BH, Quint LE, et al. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985;144:261-265.
28. Svanholm H, Starklint H, Gundersen HJ, et al. Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS. 1989;97:689-698.
29. Butchart EG, Ashcroft T, Barnsley WC, et al. Pleuropneumonectomy in the management of diffuse malignant mesothelioma of the pleura. Experience with 29 patients. Thorax. 1976;31:15-24.
30. Pleural Mesotheloma. Chapter 20. In: AJCC Cancer Staging Handbook. Springer Verlag, New York. Schouwink JH, Kool LS, Rutgers EJ, et al. The value of chest computer tomography and cervical medistinoscopy in the preoperative assessment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;126:l 1-16.
31. Heelan RT, Rusch VW, Begg CB, et al. Staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma: comparison of CT and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1039-1047.
32. Patz EF, Shaffer K, Piwnica-Worms DR, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: value of CT and MR imaging in predicting resectability. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992; 1529:961-966.
33. Lichy M, Aschoff P, Plathow C, et al. Tumor detection by diffusion-weighted MRI and ADC-mapping - initial clinical experiences in comparison to PET/CT. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:605-613.
34. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Herzog P, et al. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance image tumor stagig with the use of parallel imaging versus dual-modality positron emission tomography-computed tomography: experience on a 32-chanlle system. Invest Radiol. 2005; 40:743-753.
35. Schneider DB, Clary-Macy C, Challa S, et al. Positron emission tomography with F18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the staging and preoperative evaluation of malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120:128-133.
36. Wang ZJ, Reddy GP, Gotway MB, et al. Malignant pleural mesothelioma: evaluation with CT, MR imaging, and PET. Radiographics. 2004; 24:105-19.
37. Knuutila A, Kivisaari L, Kivisaari A, et al. Evaluation of leural disease using MR and CT. With special reference to malignant pleural mesothelioma. Acta Radiol. 2001;42:502-507.
38. Eibel R, Tuengerthal S, Schoenberg SO. The role of new imaging techniques in diagnosis and staging of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2003;15:131-138.
39. Webb WR, Gatsonis C, Zerhouni EA, et al. CT and MR imaging in staging non-small cell bronchogenic carcinoma: report of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 1991;178:705-713.
40. Herman SJ, Winton TL, Weisbrod GL, et al. Mediastinal invasion by bronchogenic carcinoma: CT signs. Radiology. 1994;190:841-846.
41. Manfredi R, Pirronti T, Bonomo L, et al. Accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in staging bronchogenic carcinoma. MAGMA. 1996;4:257-262.
42. Giesel FL, Bischoff H, von Tengg-Koblick H, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of malignant pleural mesothelioma: A feasibility study of noninvasive assessment, therapeutic follow-up, and possible predictor of improved outcome. Chest. 2006;129:1570-1576.
43. Benard F, Sterman D, Smith RJ, et al. Metabolic imaging of malignant pleural MPM with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Chest. 1998;114:713-722.
44. Carretta A, Landoni C, Melloni G, et al. 18-FDG PET in the evaluation of malignant pleural disease: a pilot study. Eur J Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;17:377-383.