Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Good clinical practice recommendations for the use of PET/CT in oncology

  • Guidelines
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is a nuclear medicine functional imaging technique with proven clinical value in oncology. PET/CT indications are continually evolving with fresh advances made through research. French practice on the use of PET in oncology was framed in recommendations based on Standards–Options–Recommendations methodology and coordinated by the French federation of Comprehensive Cancer Centres (FNLCC). The recommendations were originally issued in 2002 followed by an update in 2003, but since then, a huge number of scientific papers have been published and new tracers have been licenced for market release. The aim of this work is to bring the 2003 version recommendations up to date. For this purpose, a focus group was set up in collaboration with the French Society for Nuclear Medicine (SFMN) to work on developing good clinical practice recommendations. These good clinical practice recommendations have been awarded joint French National Heath Authority (HAS) and French Cancer Institute (INCa) label status—the stamp of methodological approval. The present document is the outcome of comprehensive literature review and rigorous appraisal by a panel of experts, organ specialists, clinical oncologists, surgeons and imaging specialists. These data were also used for the EANM referral guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Maurer T, Gschwend JE, Rauscher I, Souvatzoglou M, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA positron emission tomography compared to conventional imaging for lymph node staging of 130 consecutive patients with intermediate to high risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1436–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. von Eyben FE, Picchio M, von Eyben R, Rhee H, Bauman G. (68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand positron emission tomography/computed tomography for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(5):686–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bauman G, Martin P, Thiessen JD, Taylor R, Moussa M, Gaed M, et al. [(18)F]-DCFPyL positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging for localization of dominant intraprostatic foci: first experience. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(5):702–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Giesel FL, Hadaschik B, Cardinale J, Radtke J, Vinsensia M, Lehnert W, et al. F-18 labelled PSMA-1007: biodistribution, radiation dosimetry and histopathological validation of tumor lesions in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(4):678–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Udovicich C, Perera M, Hofman MS, Siva S, Del Rio A, Murphy DG, et al. (68)Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in advanced prostate cancer: current state and future trends. Prostate Int. 2017;5(4):125–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yaxley JW, Raveenthiran S, Nouhaud FX, Samartunga H, Yaxley AJ, Coughlin G, et al. Outcomes of primary lymph node staging of intermediate and high risk prostate cancer with (68)Ga-PSMA positron emission tomography/computerized tomography compared to histological correlation of pelvic lymph node pathology. J Urol. 2019;201(4):815–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim SJ, Lee SW, Ha HK. Diagnostic performance of radiolabeled prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for primary lymph node staging in newly diagnosed intermediate to high-risk prostate cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int. 2019;102(1):27–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gupta M, Choudhury PS, Rawal S, Goel HC, Singh A, Talwar V, et al. Risk stratification and staging in prostate cancer with prostatic specific membrane antigen PET/CTObjective: a one-stop-shop. Hell J Nucl Med. 2017;20(Suppl:156).

  9. Lin CY, Lee MT, Lin CL, Kao CH. Comparing the staging/restaging performance of 68Ga-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen and 18F-choline PET/CT in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44(5):365–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dyrberg E, Hendel HW, Huynh THV, Klausen TW, Logager VB, Madsen C, et al. (68)Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in comparison with (18)F-fluoride-PET/CT and whole-body MRI for the detection of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(3):1221–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hegemann NS, Wenter V, Spath S, Kusumo N, Li M, Bartenstein P, et al. Distribution of prostate nodes: a PET/CT-derived anatomic atlas of prostate cancer patients before and after surgical treatment. Radiat Oncol. 2016;11:37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wu SY, Boreta L, Shinohara K, Nguyen H, Gottschalk AR, Hsu IC, et al. Impact of staging (68)Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans on radiation treatment plansin patients with prostate cancer. Urology. 2019;125:154–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Roach PJ, Francis R, Emmett L, Hsiao E, Kneebone A, Hruby G, et al. The impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT on management intent in prostate cancer: results of an Australian prospective multicenter study. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2018;59(1):82–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Soldatov A, von Klot CAJ, Walacides D, Derlin T, Bengel FM, Ross TL, et al. Patterns of progression after (68)Ga-PSMA-ligand PET/CT-guided radiation therapy for recurrent prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019;103(1):95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. De Bari B, Mazzola R, Aiello D, Aloi D, Gatta R, Corradini S, et al. ((68)Ga)-PSMA-PET/CT for the detection of postoperative prostate cancer recurrence: possible implications on treatment volumes for radiation therapy. Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique. 2019;23(3):194–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Han S, Woo S, Kim YJ, Suh CH. Impact of (68)Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):179–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, Williams M, Udovicich C, Vela I, et al. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2019.

  18. Afshar-Oromieh A, Zechmann CM, Malcher A, Eder M, Eisenhut M, Linhart HG, et al. Comparison of PET imaging with a (68)Ga-labelled PSMA ligand and (18)F-choline-based PET/CT for the diagnosis of recurrent prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(1):11–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bluemel C, Krebs M, Polat B, Linke F, Eiber M, Samnick S, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT in patients with biochemical prostate cancer recurrence and negative 18F-choline-PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41(7):515–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pfister D, Porres D, Heidenreich A, Heidegger I, Knuechel R, Steib F, et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer lesions before salvage lymphadenectomy is more accurate with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC than with (18)F-fluoroethylcholine PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(8):1410–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rauscher I, Maurer T, Beer AJ, Graner FP, Haller B, Weirich G, et al. Value of 68Ga-PSMA HBED-CC PET for the assessment of lymph node metastases in prostate cancer patients with biochemical recurrence: comparison with histopathology after salvage lymphadenectomy. Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine. 2016;57(11):1713–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Perera M, Papa N, Christidis D, Wetherell D, Hofman MS, Murphy DG, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictors of positive 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):926–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pereira Mestre R, Treglia G, Ferrari M, Pascale M, Mazzara C, Azinwi NC, et al. Correlation between PSA kinetics and PSMA-PET in prostate cancer restaging: a meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Investig. 2019;49(3):e13063.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti J-L, Porcher R, Espié M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high (18)F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:426–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kühn T, Shen C, Kalker T, Kotzerke J, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1317–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bos R, van Der Hoeven JJM, van Der Wall E, van Der Groep P, van Diest PJ, Comans EFI, et al. Biologic correlates of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in human breast cancer measured by positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:379–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Cochet A, Gauthier M, Charon-Barra C, Guiu S, et al. Prognostic relevance at 5 years of the early monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy using (18)F-FDG PET in luminal HER2-negative breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:416–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Reviewers

The list of reviewers is available in the thesaurus.

INCa and HAS project managers

MOROIS Sophie, Project manager in the Good Practices Department, INCa

DUPERRAY Marianne, Head of the Good Practices Department, INCa

DAHAN Muriel, Director of the Recommendations and Drugs Department, INCa

VERMEL Christine, Responsible for the quality mission and conformity of the expertise, INCa

LAURENCE Michel, Head of the Good Professional Practice Department, HAS

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Brest, 5 Avenue Foch, 29609, Brest, France

    Pierre-Yves Salaün, Ronan Abgral & Solène Querellou-Lefranc

  2. Head and Neck, University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, France

    Olivier Malard

  3. Thoracic Oncology, University Hospital of Brest, Brest, France

    Gilles Quere

  4. Nuclear Medicine, Cochin Hospital AP-HP, Paris, France

    Myriam Wartski

  5. Gastroenterology, Cochin Hospital AP-HP, Paris, France

    Romain Coriat

  6. Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

    Elif Hindie

  7. Nuclear Medicine, AP-HM, Marseille, France

    David Taieb

  8. Endocrinology, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

    Antoine Tabarin

  9. Nuclear Medicine, Eugène Marquis Center, Rennes, France

    Antoine Girard

  10. Nuclear Medicine, Foch Hospital, Paris, France

    Jean-François Grellier

  11. Nuclear Medicine, Paoli-Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France

    Isabelle Brenot-Rossi

  12. Nuclear Medicine, Hopital Saint Louis AP-HP, Paris, France

    David Groheux

  13. Nuclear Medicine, Ouest Cancer Institute, Nantes, France

    Caroline Rousseau & Françoise Kraeber-Bodere

  14. Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, Citta della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy

    Désirée Deandreis

  15. Nuclear Medicine, Georges-François Leclerc center - François Mitterrand University Hospital, Dijon, France

    Jean-Louis Alberini

  16. Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, France

    Caroline Bodet-Milin & Françoise Kraeber-Bodere

  17. Nuclear Medicine, Henri Mondor Hospital AP-HP, Paris, France

    Emmanuel Itti

  18. Hematology, University Hospital Le Bocage, Dijon, France

    Olivier Casasnovas

  19. Hematology, University Hospital of Nantes, Nantes, France

    Philippe Moreau

  20. Centre du traitement de la douleur, CHRU de Brest, Brest, France

    Arnaud Philip

  21. Radiology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France

    Corinne Balleyguier

  22. Radiology, Henri Mondor Hospital AP-HP, Paris, France

    Alain Luciani

  23. Nuclear Medicine, Jean Perrin Cancer Institute, Clermont-Ferrand, France

    Florent Cachin

Authors
  1. Pierre-Yves Salaün
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronan Abgral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier Malard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Solène Querellou-Lefranc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gilles Quere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Myriam Wartski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Romain Coriat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elif Hindie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David Taieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Antoine Tabarin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Antoine Girard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jean-François Grellier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Isabelle Brenot-Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. David Groheux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Caroline Rousseau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Désirée Deandreis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Jean-Louis Alberini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Caroline Bodet-Milin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Emmanuel Itti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Olivier Casasnovas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Françoise Kraeber-Bodere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Philippe Moreau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Arnaud Philip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Corinne Balleyguier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Alain Luciani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Florent Cachin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre-Yves Salaün.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Publication realized at the initiative of the French Society for Nuclear Medicine (SFMN).

The full-text and roll-up summary versions are both available on the SFMN website: https://www.sfmn.org/index.php/la-societe/guides-et-recommandations/94-societe/guides-et-recommandations/355-recommandations-de-bonne-pratique-clinique-pour-l-utilisation-de-la-tep-en-cancerologie.

These good clinical practice recommendations have been awarded joint French National Heath Authority (HAS) and French Cancer Institute (INCa) label status, in recognition that they were developed in line with HAS and INCa-recommended rules, methods and procedures.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology – General

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salaün, PY., Abgral, R., Malard, O. et al. Good clinical practice recommendations for the use of PET/CT in oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47, 28–50 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04553-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04553-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation