Summary of detection of metastatic sites
| Study | Image | N | Bone | Bone marrow | Lung | Soft tissue | Distant nodes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federico et al18 | PET-CT | 30 | PET-CT detected 3/4 patients. CI detected 1/4 | FI detected 2/4 patients. CI detected 0 | PET-CT detected 4 nodules compared with 7 (in 6 patients) detected by CI | PET-CT detected multiple metastatic sites in 2 patients missed by CI. Only one of these was detectable on physical examination | |
| 4 other patients had some bone abnormality on PET-CT but not CI. Two of these were confirmed positives at follow-up | |||||||
| Ricard et al26 | PET-CT | 13 | All 4 patients identified by both PET-CT and CI. PET detected 8 more lesions across 3 patients | PET-CT detected 1/2 patients compared with 2/2 patients by CI | PET-CT and CI identified 2/2 patients; PET-CT identified 4 sites compared with 3 for CI | PET-CT detected 4/4 patients compared with 3/4 for CI. PET-CT detected an additional 5 positive nodes | |
| Tateishi et al19 | PET-CT | 35 | PET-CT generated 3 false positives and 1 false negative. CI generated 3 false positives and 6 false negatives | PET-CT identified 3 patients missed by CI | |||
| Eugene et al16 | PET-CT | 23 | PET-CT identified 3/3 patients compared with 2/3 for CI. CI also generated 1 false positive compared with 0 for PET-CT | PET-CT and CI both generated 1 false positive | PET-CT generated 1 false positive compared with 0 for CI | ||
FI, functional imaging; PET, positron emission tomography.