Role and interpretation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in HIV-infected patients with fever of unknown origin: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate prospectively the usefulness of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in investigation of fever of unknown origin (FUO) in HIV-positive patients and to determine whether HIV viraemia impacts on FDG-PET/CT performance. METHODS: The FDG-PET/CT results of 20 HIV-infected patients with FUO were analysed and compared with the FDG-PET/CT results of 10 HIV-infected viraemic patients without FUO. The performance of FDG-PET/CT for identifying the aetiology of FUO was assessed. Final diagnosis for FUO was based on histopathology, microbiological assays, or clinical and imaging follow-up. RESULTS: FDG-PET/CT contributed to the diagnosis or exclusion of a focal aetiology of the febrile state in 80% of patients with FUO. The presence of increased FDG uptake in the central lymph node has 100% specificity for focal aetiology of fever, even in viraemic patients. The absence of hypermetabolic central lymph nodes in FUO patients has 100% negative predictive value for focal disease. Lymph node biopsy in central hypermetabolic areas allowed, in 100% of cases, identification of underlying disease in patients with FUO. Biopsy of peripheral lymph nodes should be performed in lymph nodes with maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) ≥ 6-8 (sensitivity 62.5%; specificity 75%) and avoided in lymph nodes with SUVmax = 0-4 (specificity 0%). High HIV viraemia does not prevent correct interpretation of FDG-PET/CT. CONCLUSIONS: As in HIV-negative patients, we confirm the usefulness of FDG-PET/CT in investigation of FUO in HIV-positive patients even if they are viraemic.

[Uterine cervical carcinoma and pericardial effusion]. / Cancer du col utérin et épanchement péricardique.

A 64-year-olf woman has been treated by chemotherapy for a uterine cervical carcinoma with known pathological lymph nodes in the abdomen and in the thorax. She is admitted in our Intensive Care Unit for fever and cardiac tamponade attributed to a large pericardial effusion. No diagnostic could be concluded from the analysis of the liquid or the pericardial biopsy. Complementary investigations are performed and the differential diagnosis of pericardial effusion is discussed in the context of a neoplastic disease.

[Critical review of the randomized trials assessing the role of adjuvant thoracic irradiation and chemotherapy in the treatment of limited-stage small cell lung cancer]. / Revue critique des études randomisées évaluant le rôle de la radiothérapie thoracique adjuvante à la chimiothérapie dans le traitement du cancer bronchique à petites cellules au stade limité.

The role of chest irradiation in the treatment of small cell lung cancer remains controversial. Two meta-analyses have shown a significant improvement of survival when this therapy is associated to chemotherapy but the controlled studies individually lead to contradictory conclusions. We have performed qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the literature on this topic in order to try to clarify this problem. On 15 published trials, 8 only give sufficient data allowing a meta-analysis. This does not show that chest irradiation improves statistically significantly survival in comparison to chemotherapy alone (odds ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.63-1.07). The qualitative evaluation has been performed with the Chalmers and ELCWP scales. The scores obtained by both methods are highly correlated. There is no significant difference between the scores obtained by studies showing a survival improvement with irradiation or by negative studies. Very few trials report important criteria like definition of the primary end-point or the a priori estimate of the population size, attesting important methodological deficiencies. In conclusion, the quantitative aggregation of studies seems difficult to interpret because of the non optimal quality of the studies.

[Maintenance chemotherapy in the treatment of small cell lung cancer: the advocate's view]. / La chimiothérapie d'entretien dans le traitement du cancer bronchique à petites cellules: le point de vue partisan.

The role of maintenance chemotherapy in the treatment of small cell lung cancer remains controversial. We have collected the arguments in favor of that approach by performing a quantitative and qualitative overview of the studies published on this topic in the French and English literatures since 1980. On the thirteen prospective randomized trials reported, six demonstrated a significant survival advantage in favor of maintenance, no difference was observed in 6 and 1 study had a significant survival advantage for no maintenance. Due to the heterogeneity of the study designs and to the lack of published data, no meta-analysis could be performed. A qualitative overview of the different trials showed that the quality scores of the positive trials was similar to the negative ones, allowing us to conclude that they could be considered at the same level. No negative trial with a similar design can be opposed to each particular positive trial that is thus not conterbalanced. Moreover the trials not in favor of maintenance could be falsely negative by a lack of power, the publications mentioning no statistical consideration. There are thus a series of arguments in favor of maintenance chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer, which require to be confirmed by randomised trials of adequate quality.

Maintenance chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer: a critical review of the literature.

Maintenance chemotherapy after induction therapy is a controversial topic in small cell lung cancer. We carried out a critical review of the literature on this topic. Since 1980, 13 randomized trials have been published. One shows a statistically significant difference in survival in favor of maintenance, five obtain some survival advantages in subgroups of patients, one shows a significantly shorter survival with maintenance and in six studies, there is no difference between both arms. A quantitative overview or meta-analysis was unpracticable because of the lack of data for calculation of the odds ratio in the publications and because of the heterogeneity of the studies' designs. A qualitative overview was carried out using two scales: the Chalmers scores and the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) score. Correlation between both scores was excellent. There was no significant difference in quality scores with both methods between negative trials and those who showed some survival advantage for survival. The overall quality of the publications was not good, with important methodological aspects missing, such as a clear definition of the primary objective or an a priori estimate of the sample size necessary to conduct the trial. We concluded that maintenance chemotherapy could have some indications and that good quality trials, as reflected by very high quality scores, need to be carried out in the future.