18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography for bladder cancer staging: Diagnostic accuracy and prognostic implications

Background: Muscle-invasive bladder cancer has a poor prognosis. Accurate lymph node (LN) staging is crucial, yet conventional imaging demonstrates limited sensitivity for detecting metastasis, necessitating improved pre-operative assessment. Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) compared to computed tomography (CT) for LN staging in patients with bladder cancer(BC) undergoing radical cystectomy (RC), and to assess the impact of imaging-determined nodal status on survival outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 138 patients who underwent RC and pelvic LN dissection (PLND) at a multisite tertiary institution from 2008 to 2021. All patients received either pre-operative CT or FDG-PET/CT within 8 weeks before RC and PLND. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value for detecting LN metastasis (LNM) were calculated using pathological analysis as the reference standard. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox regression were employed to assess overall survival (OS). Results: FDG-PET/CT exhibited higher sensitivity (70% vs. 23.3%) and PPV (70% vs. 38.46%) compared to CT, but lower specificity (78.57% vs. 85.7%). Survival outcomes showed statistically significant differences in OS between node-positive and node-negative groups in the FDG-PET/CT cohort, but not in the CT cohort. Conclusion: FDG-PET/CT provides superior sensitivity and PPV compared to CT for LN staging in BC, facilitating more accurate pre-operative evaluation. The improved prognostic stratification associated with FDG-PET/CT may guide individualized treatment strategies.
- Girard A, Vila Reyes H, Shaish H, et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in guiding precision medicine for invasive bladder carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2020;10:565086. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.565086
- Kamat AM, Hahn NM, Efstathiou JA, et al. Bladder cancer. Lancet. 2016;388(10061):2796-2810. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30512-8
- Bouchelouche K. PET/CT in bladder cancer: An update. Semin Nucl Med. 2022;52(4):475-485. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2021.12.004
- Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht MR, Witjes JA, De La Rosette JJ, Van Der Graaf M. MR imaging of the male pelvis. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(9):1722-1736. doi: 10.1007/s003300050916
- Zhang J, Gerst S, Lefkowitz RA, Bach A. Imaging of bladder cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(1):183-205. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2006.10.005
- Liedberg F, Månsson W. Lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2006;49(1):13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.08.007
- Bacchiani M, Salamone V, Massaro E, et al. Assessing the performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in bladder cancer: A narrative review of current evidence. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(11):2951. doi: 10.3390/cancers15112951
- Al-Zubaidi M, Ong K, Viswambaram P, et al. Comparing fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography in staging for nodal and distant metastasis in urothelial/bladder cancer. BJUI Compass. 2024;5(4):473-479. doi: 10.1002/bco2.304
- Zhang-Yin J, Girard A, Marchal E, et al. PET imaging in bladder cancer: An update and future direction. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023;16(4):606. doi: 10.3390/ph16040606
- Mertens LS, Mir MC, Scott AM, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose- -positron emission tomography/computed tomography aids staging and predicts mortality in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urology. 2014;83(2):393-398. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.10.032
- Pepe P, Salemi M, Marchese G, et al. Transcriptome analysis in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In Vivo. 2024;38(4):1660-1664. doi: 10.21873/invivo.13615
- Jadvar H. Is there use for FDG-PET in prostate cancer? Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46(6):502-506. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2016.07.004
- Pepe P, Pepe L, Tamburo M, et al. 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and prostate cancer diagnosis: Which SUVmax value? In Vivo. 2023;37(3):1318-1322. doi: 10.21873/invivo.13211