Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Dec;83(12):2224-2230. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.08.016. Epub 2014 Sep 10.

¹⁸F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced CT in the standard surveillance of high risk colorectal cancer patients.

Author information

1
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain. Electronic address: gjimenez91@yahoo.com.
2
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
3
Department of Oncology, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
4
Department of Radiology, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.
5
Investigation Unit, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the accuracy of FDG-PET/contrast enhanced CT (FDG-PET/ceCT) in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high risk of relapse.

METHODS:

Thirty-three patients (14 females and 19 males, mean age: 62, range: 41-78), with CRC in complete remission, were prospectively included. All patients underwent FDG-PET/ceCT (58 studies). FDG-PET/ceCT was requested in the surveillance setting, and performed following a standardized protocol. A portal venous phase CT scan was performed after the injection of iodinated contrast agent. An individual and combined assessment of both techniques (PET and ceCT) was performed. Concordant and discordant findings of PET, ceCT and FDG-PET/ceCT were compared in a patient-based and a lesion-based analysis. The final diagnosis, recurrence or disease free status (DFS), were established by histopathology or clinical/radiological follow-up of at least 6 months.

RESULTS:

Seven out of 33 patients had a confirmed recurrence and the rest of patients had a DFS. In a patient-based analysis the sensitivity and specificity of PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 86% and 88%, 86% and 92%, 86% and 85%, respectively. Attending to the lesion-based analysis, the sensitivity for PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 56%, 71% and 97%, respectively. Both techniques showed a good concordance in the establishment of the final patient status. However, on a lesion-based analysis, no concordance was observed between them.

CONCLUSION:

PET and ceCT seem to have similar value in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of CRC in a patient-based analysis. However, the combined assessment of PET/ceCT improves the accuracy in the lesion-based analysis.

KEYWORDS:

Colorectal cancer; Contrast enhanced CT scan; FDG PET; Recurrence; Surveillance

PMID:
25306106
DOI:
10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.08.016
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center