Evidence Hub

Diagnostic Accuracy of [18F]FDG PET/CT versus CT for NSCLC Surveillance: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

K. Guldbrandsen, M. Bloch, K. Skougaard, E. Albrecht-Beste, H. Nellemann, M. Krakauer, P. Gørtz, J. M. Grüner et al.

Clinical Lung Cancer, 2025

692 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Following curative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), surveillance to detect recurrence is recommended. While computed tomography (CT) is the current standard for follow-up imaging, the optimal surveillance strategy remains debated. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG PET/CT; hereafter referred to as PET/CT) and CT for NSCLC surveillance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study represents a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial (SUPE_R, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03740126) of patients with stage IA-IIIC NSCLC who completed curative-intent treatment between February 2019 and February 2022. CT and PET/CT scans were compared for recurrence detection using biopsy, multidisciplinary team assessment, or follow-up imaging as reference standards.

RESULTS

The analysis included 899 PET/CT scans and 852 CT scans from 692 patients (mean age 69 years ± 8 [SD]; 412 female). For detecting recurrence, PET/CT demonstrated a higher sensitivity (88% [95% CI, 80%-93%] vs. 62% [95% CI, 50%-73%]; P < .001) but lower specificity (89% [95% CI, 86%-91%] vs. 96% [95% CI, 94%-97%]; P < .001) compared to CT. PET/CT demonstrated a higher sensitivity compared to CT after treatment with chemoradiotherapy (100% [95% CI, 72%-100%] vs. 46% [95% CI, 19%-75%]; P = .006) and at 0 to 6 month after treatment (83% [95% CI, 63%-94%] vs. 41% [95% CI, 21%-65%]; P = .008).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 692 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free