Comparison of MET-PET and FDG-PET for differentiation between benign lesions and malignant tumors of the lung

Objective: We retrospectively assessed and compared the usefulness of I I C -methionine (MET)PET with that of F-18-FDG-PET for the differentiation betw een benign lesions and malignant tumors of the lung. Methods: We examined 1 01 patients with a suspected lung tumor including 79 patients with primary lung cancer and 22 patients with benign lesions. One hundred and forty PET studies (46 studies with MET-PET and 94 studies with FDG-PET) were performe d. Both MET-PET and FDG-PET were performed on 39 patients. The MET-PET was performed 15 minutes after the administration of 67-740 MBq of MET, and FDG -PET 45 minutes after the administration of 30-437 MBq of FDG. The results were then evaluated by the standardized uptake value (SUV). Results: The ME T uptake in lung cancer was 3.69 +/-1.22 (n = 37) which was significantly h igher than that in benign lesions 1.81 +/-1.04 (n = 9) (p < 0.001). The sen sitivity, specificity and accuracy of MET-PET were 83.8%, 88.9% and 84.8%, respectively, when 2.66 of SUV was used as the cutoff value. The FDG uptake in lung cancer was 5.94 +/-2.89 (n = 75) and was also significantly larger than that in benign lesions 2.46 +/-1.01 (n = 19) (p < 0.001). The sensiti vity, specificity and accuracy of FDG-PET were 81.3%, 78.9% and 80.9%, resp ectively (cutoff = 3.20). The MET uptake in the lesions correlated signific antly with FDG uptake (r = 0.71, p < 0.001). According to an ROC analysis, the area under the curve for MET-PET (area = 0.833) was higher than that fo r FDG-PET (area = 0.828), but the difference was not statistically signific ant. Furthermore, the combined use of MET-PET and FDG-PET did not improve t he diagnostic ability. Conclusions: In conclusion, both MET-PET and FDG-PET were considered to be equally useful for the differential diagnosis of lun g tumors. Furthermore, MET uptake in lung lesions was found to correlate si gnificantly with FDG uptake.