BMC Pulmonary Medicine (May 2024)

The value of dynamic FDG PET/CT in the differential diagnosis of lung cancer and predicting EGFR mutations

  • Xieraili Wumener,
  • Yarong Zhang,
  • Zihan Zang,
  • Fen Du,
  • Xiaoxing Ye,
  • Maoqun Zhang,
  • Ming Liu,
  • Jiuhui Zhao,
  • Tao Sun,
  • Ying Liang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-024-02997-9
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Objectives 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT has been widely used for the differential diagnosis of cancer. Semi-quantitative standardized uptake value (SUV) is known to be affected by multiple factors and may make it difficult to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions. It is crucial to find reliable quantitative metabolic parameters to further support the diagnosis. This study aims to evaluate the value of the quantitative metabolic parameters derived from dynamic FDG PET/CT in the differential diagnosis of lung cancer and predicting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status. Methods We included 147 patients with lung lesions to perform FDG PET/CT dynamic plus static imaging with informed consent. Based on the results of the postoperative pathology, the patients were divided into benign/malignant groups, adenocarcinoma (AC)/squamous carcinoma (SCC) groups, and EGFR-positive (EGFR+)/EGFR-negative (EGFR-) groups. Quantitative parameters including K1, k2, k3, and Ki of each lesion were obtained by applying the irreversible two-tissue compartmental modeling using an in-house Matlab software. The SUV analysis was performed based on conventional static scan data. Differences in each metabolic parameter among the group were analyzed. Wilcoxon rank-sum test, independent-samples T-test, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed to compare the diagnostic effects among the differentiated groups. P 0.05, respectively). For ROC analysis, the Ki had a cut-off value of 0.0350 ml/g/min when predicting EGFR status, with a sensitivity of 0.710, a specificity of 0.588, and an AUC of 0.674 [0.523–0.802]. Conclusion Although both techniques were specific, Ki had a greater specificity than SUVmax when the cut-off value was set at 0.0250 ml/g/min for the differential diagnosis of lung cancer. At a cut-off value of 0.0350 ml/g/min, there was a 0.710 sensitivity for EGFR status prediction. If EGFR testing is not available for a patient, dynamic imaging could be a valuable non-invasive screening method.

Keywords