¿Quiénes somos? ¿Dónde estamos? Contacta ¿Qué es la MBE? Aviso Legal
Revisiones/ Actualizaciones Revisiones/ Actualizaciones


1.- Shaham D, Guralnik L.The solitary pulmonary nodule: radiologic considerations. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2000 Apr;21(2):97-115. Review.

2.- Trunk G, Gracey DR, Byrd RB. The management and evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule. Chest. 1974 Sep;66(3):236-9. No abstract available.

3.- HigginsGA, Shields TW, Keehn RJ.The solitary pulmonary nodule. Ten-year follow-up of veterans administration-armed forces cooperative study. Arch Surg. 1975 May;110(5):570-5.

4.- Ray JF 3rd, Lawton BR, Magnin GE, Dovenbarger WV, SmullenWA, Reyes CN, Myers WO, Wenzel FJ, Sautter RD. The coin lesion story: update 1976. Twenty years' experience with thoracotomy for 179 suspected malignant coin lesions. Chest. 1976 Sep;70(03):332-6.

5.- Toomes H, Delphendahl A, Manke HG, Vogt-Moykopf I.The coin lesion of the lung. A review of 955 resected coin lesions. Cancer. 1983 Feb 1;51(3):534-7.

6.- Rubins JB, Rubins HB.Temporal trends in the prevalence of malignancy in resected solitary pulmonary lesions. Chest. 1996 Jan;109(1):100-3.

7.- Jackman RJ, Good CA, Clagett OT, Woolner LB.Survival rates in peripheral bronchogenic carcinomas up to four centimeters in diameter presenting as solitary pulmonary nodules. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1969 Jan;57(1):1-8.

8.- LillingtonGA.Pulmonary nodules: solitary and multiple. Clin Chest Med. 1982 May;3(2):361-7. No abstract available.

9.- Álvarez CJ: Determinación de un modelo predictivo de la probabilidad de malignidad en el nódulo pulmonar solitario y verificación de la bondad predictiva del modelo. Tesis Doctoral: López Encuentra A, director: Departamento de Medicina. Facultad de Medicina. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 14 Febrero de 2000

10.- Ost D, Fein A. Evaluation and management of the solitary pulmonary nodule. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):782-7. Review.

11.- Lillington GA. Management of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dis Mon. 1991 May;37(5):271-318. Review.

12.- Coultas DB, Samet JM, Wiggins CL, Butler C, Sweeney ES, Parzyck T. Clinical features of a population-based series of patients with lung cancerpresenting with a solitary nodule. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1986 Feb;133(2):302-6.

13.- Alvarez Martínez C, Yubero Salgado L. Nódulo pulmonar solitario. En: Martín Escribano P, López Encuentra A, Eds. Pautas de práctica clínica en Neumología. IDEPSA , Madrid 1996: 50-57

14.- Stoller JK, Ahmad M, Rice TW.Solitary pulmonary nodule. Cleve Clin J Med. 1988 Jan-Feb;55(1):68-74. Review. No abstract available.

15.- Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Miettinen OS, Libby DM, Pasmantier MW, Koizumi J, Altorki NK, Smith JP. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet. 1999 Jul 10;354(9173):99-105.

16.-Francisco Pozo. Estudio ELCAP. TAC-Baja Radiación y screening del carcinoma broncogénico I. Casos prevalentes.

17.-Francisco Pozo, comunicación personal, VII Congreso de la Sociedad Madrileña de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica,
Abril de 2002. Utilidad de los programas de detección precoz del carcinoma broncogénico en población de riesgo.

18.- Schuster DP. Positron emission tomography: theory and its application to the study of lung disease. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1989 Mar;139(3):818-40. Review. No abstract available.

19.- Patz EF Jr, Goodman PC.Positron emission tomography imaging of the thorax.Radiol Clin North Am. 1994 Jul;32(4):811-23.

20.- WeberWA, Avril N, Schwaiger M. Relevance of positron emission tomography (PET) in oncology. Strahlenther Onkol. 1999 Aug;175(8):356-73. Review.

21.- Worsley DF, Celler A, Adam MJ, Kwong JS, Muller NL, Coupland DB, Champion P, Finley RJ, Evans KG, Lyster DM.Pulmonary nodules: differential diagnosis using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose single-photon emission computed tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Mar;168(3):771-4.

22.- Gould MK, Maclean CC, Kuschner WG, Rydzak CE, Owens DK. Accuracy of positron emission tomography for diagnosis of pulmonary nodules and mass lesions: a meta-analysis.JAMA. 2001; 285:914-24.

23.- Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994 Sep 3;309(6954):597-9.

24.-LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997 ;337(8):536-42.

25.-Bailar JC 3rd.The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med. 1997 Aug 21;337(8):559-61. No abstract available.

26.- Thompson SG, Pocock SJ.Can meta-analyses be trusted? Lancet. 1991 Nov 2;338(8775):1127-30.

27.-Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B.Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996 May-Sep;63(3-4):216-24. Review.

28.- Feinstein AR. Meta-analysis: statistical alchemy for the 21st century. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):71-9. Review. No abstract available.

29.- Naylor CD. meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):617-9. No abstract available.

30.-Last JM. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. 4th Edition. OxfordMedicalUniversity Press, Oxford 2001.

31.- Delgado-Rodriguez M, Sillero-Arenas M.[Biases in meta-analysis] Med Clin (Barc). 1999;112 Suppl 1:43-50. Review. Spanish.

32.-Adams E. 1996. Technology Assessment. Management Decision and ResearchCenter. Veterans Health Administration’s Office of Research and Development. USA. ReportNo. 3.Positron Emission Tomography. Appendix 7. Systematic Review: PET as a Diagnostic Test in Solitary Pulmonary Nodules.

33.-Adams E. 1998. Technology Assessment. Management Decision and ResearchCenter. Veterans Health Administration’s Office of Research and Development. USA. ReportNo. 10.Positron Emission Tomography. Descriptive Analysis with PET in VA. A systematic Review Update of FDG-PET as a Diagnostic Test in Cancer and Alzheimer’ s Disease.

34.-Adams E, Asua J, Conde Olasagasti J, Erlichman M, Flynn K and Hurtada-Saracho I. 1999. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Stockolm, Sweden. Positron Emission tomography: experience with PET and synthesis of the evidence.

35.-Robert G, Milne R. 1999. Health Technology Assessment NHS R&D HTA Programme. UK. Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment.

36.-Pérez-Lozano MJ, Briones E. 2000. Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía. Informe sobre consulta específica. Sevilla, España. Tomografía por Emisión de Positrones(PET): síntesis de investigación sobre efectividad en diferentes indicaciones clínicas.
M�s Info

37.-Ulrik Lassen.2001. Center for Evaluering og Medicinsk Teknologivurdering. DanishCenter for Evaluation of Health technology assessment. Copenhagen.Positron Emission tomography (PET) with 18-f-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG): a survey of the literature with regard to evidence for clinical use in oncology, cardiology and neurology.
M�s Info

38.-Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. 2001.Informe No. 30. Madrid, España. Tomografía por Emisión de Positrones (PET) con 18FDG en Oncología Clínica (Revisión Sistemática)
Más Info

39.- Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME.A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature.J Nucl Med. 2001 May;42(5 Suppl):1S-93S. Review. No abstract available.

40.-MSAC assessment report. Medicare Services Advisory Committe.2001.Commonwealth of Australia. Positron Emission tomography

41.-Bradbury I, Boynton J, Facey K, Iqbal K, McDonald C, parpia T, Sharp P, Walker A. 2002. Health Technology Board for Scotland. Consultation assessment Report. Health Technology Assessment ofPositron Emission Tomography(PET)imaging in cancer management: Staging no-small cell lun cancer (NSCLC)
Mas Info

42.- Kubota K, Matsuzawa T, Fujiwara T, Ito M, Hatazawa J, Ishiwata K, Iwata R, Ido T. Differential diagnosis of lung tumor with positron emission tomography: a prospective study. J Nucl Med. 1990 Dec;31(12):1927-32.

43.- Patz EF Jr, Lowe VJ, Hoffman JM, Paine SS, Burrowes P, Coleman RE, Goodman PC. Focal pulmonary abnormalities: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET scanning. Radiology. 1993 Aug;188(2):487-90.

44.- Duhaylongsod FG, Lowe VJ, Patz EF Jr, Vaughn AL, Coleman RE, Wolfe WG. Detection of primary and recurrent lung cancer by means of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995 Jul;110(1):130-9; 139-40.

44.-Bury T, Dowlati A, Paulus P, Corhay JL, Benoit T, Kayembe JM, Limet R, Rigo P, Radermecker M. Evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule by positron emission tomography imaging. Eur Respir J. 1996 Mar;9(3):410-4.

45.- GuptaNC, Maloof J, Gunel E. Probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules using fluorine-18-FDG and PET. J Nucl Med. 1996 Jun;37(6):943-8.

46.- Dewan NA, Shehan CJ, Reeb SD, Gobar LS, Scott WJ, Ryschon K. Likelihood of malignancy in a solitary pulmonary nodule: comparison of Bayesian analysis and results of FDG-PET scan.Chest.1997 Aug;112(2):416-22.

47.- Hagberg RC, Segall GM, Stark P, Burdon TA, Pompili MF. Characterization of pulmonary nodules and mediastinal staging of bronchogenic carcinoma with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997 Jul;12(1):92-7.

48.- Gupta N, Gill H, Graeber G, Bishop H, Hurst J, Stephens T. Dynamic positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose imaging in differentiation of benign from malignant lung/mediastinal lesions. Chest. 1998 Oct;114(4):1105-11.

49.-Lowe VJ, Fletcher JW, Gobar L, Lawson M, Kirchner P, Valk P, Karis J, Hubner K, Delbeke D, Heiberg EV, Patz EF, Coleman RE. Prospective investigation of positron emission tomography in lung nodules. J Clin Oncol. 1998 Mar;16(3):1075-84.

50.- Prauer HW, Weber WA, Romer W, Treumann T, Ziegler SI, Schwaiger M. Controlled prospective study of positron emission tomography using the glucose analogue [18f]fluorodeoxyglucose in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Br J Surg. 1998 Nov;85(11):1506-11.

51.-Richter JA, Torre W, Gamez C, Aramendia JM, Crespo A, Nicolas A, Brugarolas A. [Value of Pet-18FDG in lung cancer] Med Clin (Barc). 1999 Nov 6;113(15):567-71..

52.- Skehan SJ, Coates G, Otero C, O'Donovan N, Pelling M, Nahmias C. Visual and semiquantitative analysis of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography using a partial-ring tomograph without attenuation correction to differentiate benign and malignant pulmonary nodules. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2001 Aug;52(4):259-65.

53.- Higashi K, Nishikawa T, Seki H, Oguchi M, Nambu Y, Ueda Y, Yuasa K, Tonami H, Okimura T, Yamamoto I.Comparison of fluorine-18-FDG PET and thallium-201 SPECT in evaluation of lung cancer.J Nucl Med. 1998 Jan;39(1):9-15.

54.- Carreras Delgado JL.[Positron-emission tomography (PET) in solitary pulmonary nodule] An R Acad Nac Med (Madr). 2001;118(2):405-16; discussion 416-9. Review. Spanish.

55.- Matthies A, Hickeson M, Cuchiara A, Alavi A. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. J Nucl Med. 2002 Jul;43(7):871-5.

56.- Pitman AG, Hicks RJ, Kalff V, Binns DS, Ware RE, McKenzie AF, Ball DL, MacManus MP. Positron emission tomography in pulmonary masses where tissue diagnosis is unhelpful or not possible.Med J Aust.2001 Sep 17;175(6):303-7.

57.-Cheon,E.M.; Kim,B.T.; Kwon,O.J.; Kim,H.; Chung,M.P.; Rhee,C.H.; Han,Y.C.; Lee,K.S.; Shim,Y.M.; Kim,J.; Han,J. Diagnostic efficacy of FDG-PET imaging in solitary pulmonary nodule. Tuberc Respir Dis 1996; 44: 1263-1270.

Background: Over one-third of solitary pulmonary nodules are malignant, but most malignant SPNs are in the early stages at diagnosis and can be cured by surgical removal. Therefore, early diagnosis of malignant SPN is essential for the lifesaving of the patient. The incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in Korea is somewhat higher than those of other countries and a large number of SPNs are found to be tuberculoma. Most primary physicians tend to regard newly detected solitary pulmonary nodule as tuberculoma with only noninvasive imaging such as CT and they prefer clinical observation if the findings suggest benignancy without further invasive procedures. Many kinds of noninvasive procedures for confirmatory diagnosis have been introduced to differentiate malignant SPNs from benign ones, but none of them has been satisfactory. FDG-PET is a unique tool for imaging and quantifying the status of glucose metabolism. On the basis that glucose metabolism is increased in the malignant transformed cells compared with normal cells, FDG-PET is considered to be the satisfactory noninvasive procedure which can differentiate malignant SPNs from benign SPNs. So we performed FDG-PET in patients with solitary pulmonary nodule and evaluated the diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of malignant SPNs. Method: 34 patients with a solitary pulmonary nodule less than 6 cm of its diameter who visited SamsungMedicalCenter for September, 1994 to September, 1995 were evaluated prospectively. Simple chest roentgenography, chest computer tomography, FDG-PET scan were performed for all patients. The results of FDG-PET were evaluated comparing with the results of final diagnosis confirmed by sputum study, PCNA, fiberoptic bronchoscopy, or thoracotomy. Results: (1) There was no significant difference in nodule size between malignant (3.1 1.5 cm) and benign nodule (2.81.0 cm)(P > 0.05). (2) Peak SUV (standardized uptake value) of malignant nodules (6.93.7) was significantly higher than peak SUV of benign nodules (2.71.7) and time-activity curves showed continuous increase in malignant nodules. (3) Three false negative cases were found among eighteen malignant nodule by the FDG-PET imaging study and all three cases were nonmucinous bronchiolalveolar carcinoma less than 2 cm diameter. (4) FDG-PET imaging resulted in 83% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value and 84% negative predictive value. Conclusion: FDG-PET imaging is a new noninvasive diagnostic method of solitary pulmonary nodule that has a high accuracy of differential diagnosis between malignant and benign nodule. FDG-PET imaging could be used for the differential diagnosis of SPN which is not properly diagnosed with conventional methods before thoracotomy. Considering the high accuracy of FDG-PET imaging, this procedure may play an important role in making the decision to perform thoracotomy in difficult cases.

58.-Nackaerts K, Stroobants S, Vansteenkiste J, et al. The use of positron emission tomography (PET) in the differential diagnosis of indeterminate solitary pulmonary lesions. Eur Respir J. 1997; 10: 425S-426S.

59.-Park JM, Choi JY, Lee KH, et al FDG-PET evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules indeterminate on chest CT. Eur J Nucl Med 1998; 25: 1010

60.-Narin Y, Ozguven M, Dehdasthi F, et al.FDG-PET imaging of indeterminate solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN). Eur J Necl Med 1999; 26: 1159

61.-Schiepers C, Meta J, Yap CS, et al Characterization of solitary pulmonary nodules and lung cancer with FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 2000 41 296P

62.-Castagnoli A, Vaggelli L, Briganti V, et al.Fist results of a new PET center in diagnosis of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules with F18DG-PET. Eur J Nucl Med 2001;28:1099

63.-Couch W Change in SUV of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules (SPN) in delayed 18-FDG PET imaging: bening vs malignant nodules J Nucl Med 2002;42:154P

64.-Buck AK, Hetzel M, Schirmeister H, et al. 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG PET for assessment of pulmonary nodules. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29: S79

65.- Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Quantitative procedures. In Summing up: the Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversity Press;1984

66.-Reference Manager V10 for Windows. Thomson ISI ResearchSoft. 2001.

67.-Mijnhout GS, Hooft L, van Tulder MW, Deville WL, Teule GJ, Hoekstra OS. How to perform a comprehensive search for FDG-PET literature. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:91-7.

68.-Kent DL, Haynor DR, Longstreth WT Jr, Larson EB.The clinical efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in neuroimaging. Ann Intern Med. 1994 May 15;120(10):856-71. Review.

69.- Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B.Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations.Stat Med. 1993 Jul 30;12(14):1293-316.

70.-Hasselblad V, Hedges LV.Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests.Psychol Bull. 1995 Jan;117(1):167-78.

71.- Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994 Apr 15;120(8):667-76.

72.-Lau J. Meta-Test version 0.6. New England medical Center. Boston, 1997.

73.- Borenstein M. Comprehensive MetaAnalysis. A computer Program for reesarch Synthesis. Biostat, Inc. New Jersey, USA

74.- SAS V8.02 for Windows. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North Carolina.

75.-Grinner PF, Panzer RJ, Greenland FG. Clinical Diagnosis and the Laboratory. Logical Strategies for Common Clinical Problems. Year Book Medical Publishers Inc. London 1986.

76.- James W. Fletcher, M.D., IUPUI, Indianapolis, IN. George Segall, M.D., HCS, Palo Alto, CA.18 f-fluorodeoxyglucose (fdg) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging in the management of patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Cooperative Studies Program (125). VHA Headquarters. 810 Vermont Avenue, NW. Washington, DC20420.

Menu Web
Inicio Volver Arriba Establecer como Página de Inicio Atrás Añadir a mis favoritos
Mejor idea de la década. Diario Médico
Grupo de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia. Servicio de Neumología. Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre
Grupo de Medicina Basada en la Evidencia
Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre

Desarrollado por:
Quodem Consultores

Última modificación: 01/04/2014