↓ Skip to main content

Role of FDG-PET scans in staging, response assessment, and follow-up care for non-small cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Role of FDG-PET scans in staging, response assessment, and follow-up care for non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2012.00208
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Cuaron, Mark Dunphy, Andreas Rimner

Abstract

The integral role of positron-emission tomography (PET) using the glucose analog tracer fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in the staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is well established. Evidence is emerging for the role of PET in response assessment to neoadjuvant therapy, combined-modality therapy, and early detection of recurrence. Here, we review the current literature on these aspects of PET in the management of NSCLC. FDG-PET, particularly integrated (18)F-FDG-PET/CT, scans have become a standard test in the staging of local tumor extent, mediastinal lymph node involvement, and distant metastatic disease in NSCLC. (18)F-FDG-PET sensitivity is generally superior to computed tomography (CT) scans alone. Local tumor extent and T stage can be more accurately determined with FDG-PET in certain cases, especially in areas of post-obstructive atelectasis or low CT density variation. FDG-PET sensitivity is decreased in tumors <1 cm, at least in part due to respiratory motion. False-negative results can occur in areas of low tumor burden, e.g., small lymph nodes or ground-glass opacities. (18)F-FDG-PET-CT nodal staging is more accurate than CT alone, as hilar and mediastinal involvement is often detected first on (18)F-FDG-PET scan when CT criteria for malignant involvement are not met. (18)F-FDG-PET scans have widely replaced bone scintography for assessing distant metastases, except for the brain, which still warrants dedicated brain imaging. (18)F-FDG uptake has also been shown to vary between histologies, with adenocarcinomas generally being less FDG avid than squamous cell carcinomas. (18)F-FDG-PET scans are useful to detect recurrences, but are currently not recommended for routine follow-up. Typically, patients are followed with chest CT scans every 3-6 months, using (18)F-FDG-PET to evaluate equivocal CT findings. As high (18)F-FDG uptake can occur in infectious, inflammatory, and other non-neoplastic conditions, (18)F-FDG-PET-positive findings require pathological confirmation in most cases. There is increased interest in the prognostic and predictive role of FDG-PET scans. Studies show that absence of metabolic response to neoadjuvant therapy correlates with poor pathologic response, and a favorable (18)F-FDG-PET response appears to be associated with improved survival. Further work is underway to identify subsets of patients that might benefit individualized management based on FDG-PET.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 57%
Physics and Astronomy 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 21 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2020.
All research outputs
#14,914,476
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#4,134
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,310
of 289,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#80
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.