Clinical Applications of P.E.T. in Oncology

Conference Vancouver, B.C.  June 11, 2001

Paediatrics

Speakers

Dr Nadel (part of main presentation):

So if we look at the practice guidelines, which would be recommended for paediatrics:

  1. We have talked about brain tumours and that would be in basically assessment of recurrence versus radiation necrosis.
  2. Lymphoma is well established.
  3. In the sarcomas we would be looking at response to therapy, recurrence in the operative site, and metastatic spread.
  4. Dr Shreve mentioned neuroblastoma, there is a group of patients who do present with MIBG negative lesions and this would be another indication.

Thank you.

Dr Sutcliffe: I am just going to Paediatrics now I think perhaps if I may summarize and tell me if you disagree. It would seem that probably we are saying there really isn’t enough literature or experience to actually come across with strong evidence-based guidelines for the use of PET in paediatric malignancies. Certainly it would appear that the brain tumours which are a common site—the issue of recurrence versus necrosis remains a very dominant reason for exploring PET and by analogy with other precedents in adult cancer, lymphoma would seem to be likely strong indication for the use of PET. Similarly sarcoma and neuroblastoma, seem to be sites where clinical sites are justified even though the evidence is not yet there to give chapter and verse on its utilization. Would that be a reasonable synopsis from our expert faculty for where that stands? Any questions or further observations on those sites?

Dr Shreve: Well I think the point that I made that children are a special case and that you could make a special case for a special funding for a certain allocation of scans for a certain number of paediatric patients so that you can gain experience. To wait for definitive data, it could be five years, which I think is a disservice to that population.

Table of Contents • Previous • Next