Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Technology Insight: advances in molecular imaging and an appraisal of PET/CT scanning

Nature Clinical Practice Oncology volume 5, pages 160–170 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

PET/CT imaging has rapidly emerged as an important imaging tool in oncology. The success of PET/CT imaging is based on several features. First, patients benefit from a comprehensive diagnostic anatomical and functional (molecular) whole-body survey in a single session. Second, PET/CT provides more-accurate diagnostic information than PET or CT alone. Third, PET/CT imaging allows radiation oncologists to use the functional information provided by PET scans for radiation treatment planning. In this Review we discuss the technical features of PET/CT, its economic aspects within the health-care system, and its role in diagnosis, staging, restaging and treatment monitoring as well as radiation planning in patients with cancer.

Key Points

  • PET/CT with the glucose analog [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose has emerged as an important tool for staging and restaging a variety of malignant tumors

  • PET/CT has been shown to be more accurate for detection of metastatic lesions than either PET or CT alone

  • By providing functional and morphological information in a single examination, PET/CT can shorten the diagnostic workup of cancer patients

  • PET/CT allows the functional information of PET to be used for radiation treatment planning purposes

  • PET/CT will facilitate the clinical use of new molecular imaging probes by showing the exact anatomical localization of their distribution in normal organs and in tumors

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Number of PET/CT and PET scans performed in the US per year from 2000 to 2006, with an estimate (*) for 2007.
Figure 2: PET/CT study in a patient with non-small-cell lung cancer.
Figure 3: Metabolically active brown adipose tissue in a patient with a history of Hodgkin's disease.
Figure 4: Impact of PET/CT on radiation treatment planning.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Phelps M et al. (1975) Application of annihilation coincidence detection to transaxial reconstruction tomography. J Nucl Med 16: 210–224

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reivich M et al. (1977) Measurement of local cerebral glucose metabolism in man with 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 64: 190–191

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schelbert H et al. (1979) Regional myocardial perfusion assessed with N-13 labeled ammonia and positron emission computerized axial tomography. Am J Cardiol 43: 209–218

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Som P et al. (1980) A fluorinated glucose analog, 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (F-18): nontoxic tracer for rapid tumor detection. J Nucl Med 21: 670–675

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahlbom M et al. (1992) Whole-body positron emission tomography: Part I. Methods and performance characteristics. J Nucl Med 33: 1191–1199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beyer T et al. (2000) A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 41: 1369–1379

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Townsend DW et al. (2004) PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med 45: 4S–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. IMV (2006) 2005/06 PET Market Summary Report. IMV: Des Plaines. http://www.imvinfo.com/index.asp?sec=mkt&sub=omkt&pag=def&pid=42010

  9. Halpern B et al. (2004) Impact of patient weight and emission scan duration on PET/CT image quality and lesion detectability. J Nucl Med 45: 797–801

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim J-H et al. (2005) Comparison between 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 46: 587–595

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Czernin J et al. (2007) Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 48 Suppl 1: 78S–88S

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zasadny K et al. (1996) Untreated lung cancer: quantification of systematic distortions of tumor size and shape on non-attenuation corrected 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose PET scans. Radiology 200: 135–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kinahan P et al. (1998) Attenuation correction for a combined 3D PET/CT scanner. Med Phys 25: 2046–2053

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goerres G et al. (2002) PET-CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration. J Nucl Med 29: 351–360

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pan T et al. (2005) Attenuation correction of PET images with respiration-averaged CT images in PET/CT. J Nucl Med 46: 1481–1487

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nehmeh SA et al. (2004) Four-dimensional (4D) PET/CT imaging of the thorax. Med Phys 31: 3179–3186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Antoch G et al. (2002) Focal tracer uptake: a potential artifact in contrast-enhanced dual-modality PET/CT scans. J Nucl Med 43: 1339–1342

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Antoch G et al. (2004) To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45 (Suppl): S56–S65

    Google Scholar 

  19. Allen-Auerbach M et al. (2006) Standard PET/CT of the chest during shallow breathing is inadequate for comprehensive staging of lung cancer. J Nucl Med 47: 298–301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schoder H et al. (2006) 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting nodal metastases in patients with oral cancer staged N0 by clinical examination and CT/MRI. J Nucl Med 47: 755–762

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Palmedo H et al. (2006) Integrated PET/CT in differentiated thyroid cancer: diagnostic accuracy and impact on patient management. J Nucl Med 47: 616–624

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yi CA et al. (2006) Tissue characterization of solitary pulmonary nodule: comparative study between helical dynamic CT and integrated PET/CT. J Nucl Med 47: 443–450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim SK et al. (2007) Accuracy of PET/CT in characterization of solitary pulmonary lesions. J Nucl Med 48: 214–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lardinois D et al. (2003) Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 348: 2500–2507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cerfolio R et al. (2006) Restaging patients with N2 (stage IIIa) non–small cell lung cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a prospective study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131: 1229–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tatsumi M et al. (2006) Initial experience with FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33: 254–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fueger B et al. (2005) Performance of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography and integrated PET/CT in restaged breast cancer patients. Mol Imaging Biol 7: 369–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bar-Shalom R et al. (2005) The additional value of PET/CT over PET in FDG imaging of oesophageal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32: 918–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cohade C et al. (2003) Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44: 1797–1803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Freudenberg LS et al. (2004) FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31: 325–329

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Reinhardt MJ et al. (2006) Diagnostic performance of whole body dual modality 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging for N- and M-staging of malignant melanoma: experience with 250 consecutive patients. J Clin Oncol 24: 1178–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohade C et al. (2003) “USA-Fat”: prevalence is related to ambient outdoor temperature-evaluation with 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 44: 1267–1270

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Allen-Auerbach M et al. (2004) Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-[D]-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 6: 411–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dwamena B et al. (1999) Metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: mediastinal staging in the 1990s—meta-analytic comparison of PET and CT. Radiology 213: 530–536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen Y et al. (2006) Clinical usefulness of fused PET/CT compared with PET alone or CT alone in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Anticancer Res 26: 1471–1477

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schoder H et al. (2004) Head and neck cancer: clinical usefulness and accuracy of PET/CT image fusion. Radiology 231: 65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shim SS et al. (2005) Non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of integrated FDG PET/CT and CT alone for preoperative staging. Radiology 236: 1011–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Votrubova J et al. (2006) The role of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33: 779–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. la Fougère C et al. (2006) Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33: 1417–1425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mottaghy FM et al. (2007) Direct comparison of [(18)F]FDG PET/CT with PET alone and with side-by-side PET and CT in patients with malignant melanoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34: 1355–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Grosu AL et al. (2003) Validation of a method for automatic image fusion (BrainLAB System) of CT data and 11C-methionine-PET data for stereotactic radiotherapy using a LINAC: first clinical experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56: 1450–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ling CC et al. (2000) Towards multidimensional radiotherapy (MD-CRT): biological imaging and biological conformality. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47: 551–560

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Nestle U et al. (2006) Practical integration of [18F]-FDG-PET and PET-CT in the planning of radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): the technical basis, ICRU-target volumes, problems, perspectives. Radiother Oncol 81: 209–225

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Gregoire V et al. (2007) PET-based treatment planning in radiotherapy: a new standard? J Nucl Med 48 (Suppl 1): S68–S77

    Google Scholar 

  45. Caldwell CB et al. (2001) Observer variation in contouring gross tumor volume in patients with poorly defined non-small-cell lung tumors on CT: the impact of 18FDG-hybrid PET fusion. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 51: 923–931

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Nestle U et al. (2005) Comparison of different methods for delineation of 18F-FDG PET-positive tissue for target volume definition in radiotherapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Nucl Med 46: 1342–1348

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chapman JD et al. (2003) Molecular (functional) imaging for radiotherapy applications: an RTOG symposium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 55: 294–301

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Daisne JF et al. (2004) Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology 233: 93–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Grosu AL et al. (2005) Positron emission tomography for radiation treatment planning. Strahlenther Onkol 181: 483–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Grosu AL et al. (2005) L-(methyl-11C) methionine positron emission tomography for target delineation in resected high-grade gliomas before radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63: 64–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Grosu AL et al. (2005) Reirradiation of recurrent high-grade gliomas using amino acid PET (SPECT)/CT/MRI image fusion to determine gross tumor volume for stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 63: 511–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Grosu A et al. (2007) Hypoxia imaging with FAZA-PET and theoretical considerations with regard to dose painting using IMRT in patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69: 541–551

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Chao KS et al. (2001) A novel approach to overcome hypoxic tumor resistance: Cu-ATSM-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 49: 1171–1182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Weber WA (2006) Positron emission tomography as an imaging biomarker. J Clin Oncol 24: 3282–3292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Juweid ME and Cheson BD (2005) Role of positron emission tomography in lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 23: 4577–4580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cheson BD et al. (2007) Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25: 579–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Larson SM et al. (1999) Tumor treatment response based on visual and quantitative changes in global tumor glycolysis using PET-FDG imaging. The visual response score and the change in total lesion glycolysis. Clin Positron Imaging 2: 159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Beer AJ et al. (2006) Adenocarcinomas of esophagogastric junction: multi-detector row CT to evaluate early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology 239: 472–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wieder HA et al. (2005) Comparison of changes in tumor metabolic activity and tumor size during chemotherapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction. J Nucl Med 46: 2029–2034

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pöttgen C et al. (2006) Value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-[D]-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 12: 97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Goerres GW et al. (2005) The value of PET, CT and in-line PET/CT in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours: long-term outcome of treatment with imatinib mesylate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32: 153–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Antoch G et al. (2004) Comparison of PET, CT, and dual-modality PET/CT imaging for monitoring of imatinib (STI571) therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med 45: 357–365

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Reske SN et al. (2006) Imaging prostate cancer with 11C-choline PET/CT. J Nucl Med 47: 1249–1254

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Shields AF et al. (1998) Imaging proliferation in vivo with [F-18]FLT and positron emission tomography. Nat Med 4: 1334–1336

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Buck A et al. (2003) Imaging proliferation in lung tumors with PET: 18F-FLT versus 18F-FDG. J Nucl Med 44: 1426–1431

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Beer AJ et al. (2006) Positron emission tomography using [18F]Galacto-RGD identifies the level of integrin alpha(v)beta3 expression in man. Clin Cancer Res 12: 3942–3949

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Larson SM et al. (2004) Tumor localization of 16β-18F-fluoro-5α-dihydrotestosterone versus 18F-FDG in patients with progressive, metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 45: 366–373

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Linden HM et al. (2006) Quantitative fluoroestradiol positron emission tomography imaging predicts response to endocrine treatment in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24: 2793–2799

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Gabriel M et al. (2007) 68Ga-DOTA-Tyr3-octreotide PET in neuroendocrine tumors: comparison with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy and CT. J Nucl Med 48: 508–518

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WA Weber is Director and Professor of Nuclear Medicine and AL Grosu is Director and Professor of Radiotherapy, University of Freiburg, Germany,

    Wolfgang A Weber & Anca L Grosu

  2. J Czernin is Director and Professor of Nuclear Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,

    Johannes Czernin

Authors
  1. Wolfgang A Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anca L Grosu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Czernin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang A Weber.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, W., Grosu, A. & Czernin, J. Technology Insight: advances in molecular imaging and an appraisal of PET/CT scanning. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 5, 160–170 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1041

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1041

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing