Literature DB >> 11079584

Whole-body FDG positron emission tomographic imaging for staging esophageal cancer comparison with computed tomography.

C C Meltzer1, J D Luketich, D Friedman, M Charron, D Strollo, M Meehan, G K Urso, M A Dachille, D W Townsend.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of the authors in this study was to critically evaluate the role of whole-body positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) in staging esophageal cancer, and further to compare this method with conventional imaging with computed tomography (CT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed independent, blinded retrospective evaluations of FDG PET images obtained in 47 patients referred for the initial staging of esophageal cancer before minimally invasive surgical staging. Twenty PET studies from patients with nonesophageal thoracic cancers were randomly selected for inclusion in the PET readings. In a subset of 37 of 47 cases, the PET findings were compared with independent readings of CT studies acquired within the same 6-week interval. The utility of the imaging findings was evaluated using a high-sensitivity interpretation (i.e., assigning equivocal findings as positive) and a low-sensitivity interpretation (i.e., assigning equivocal findings as negative).
RESULTS: PET was less sensitive (41% in high-sensitivity mode, 35% in low-sensitivity mode) than CT (63% to 87%) for diagnosing tumor involvement in locoregional lymph nodes, which was identified by surgical assessment in 72% of patients. Notable, however, was the greater specificity of PET-determined nodal sites (to approximately 90%) compared with CT (14% to 43%). In detecting histologically proved distant metastases (n = 10), PET performed considerably better when applied in the high-sensitivity mode, with a sensitivity rate of approximately 70% and a specificity rate of more than 90% in the total group and in the subset of patients with correlative CT data. In the low-sensitivity mode, CT identified only two of seven metastatic sites, whereas the high-sensitivity mode resulted in an unacceptably high rate of false-positive readings (positive predictive value, 29%). PET correctly identified one additional site of metastasis that was not detected by CT.
CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low sensitivity of PET for identifying locoregional lesions precludes its replacement of conventional CT staging. However, the primary advantage of PET imaging is its superior specificity for tumor detection and improved diagnostic value for distant metastatic sites, features that may substantially affect patient management decisions. In conclusion, PET imaging is useful in the initial staging of esophageal cancer and provides additional and complementary information to that obtained by CT imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11079584     DOI: 10.1097/00003072-200011000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nucl Med        ISSN: 0363-9762            Impact factor:   7.794


  25 in total

Review 1.  Multimodality therapy for gastroesophageal cancers.

Authors:  Kenneth K Wang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  PET: other thoracic malignancies.

Authors:  Leslie E Quint
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 3.909

Review 3.  The added value of metabolic imaging with FDG-PET in oesophageal cancer: prognostic role and prediction of response to treatment.

Authors:  Emilio Bombardieri
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Significant clinical impact and prognostic stratification provided by FDG-PET in the staging of oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Cuong P Duong; Helen Demitriou; Leann Weih; Anne Thompson; David Williams; Robert J S Thomas; Rodney J Hicks
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2006-02-10       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  Brain metastasis from oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Nwabundo Nwankwo; Aibek E Mirrakhimov; Kenneth P Wind; Nora Bucher
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2013-04-19

6.  Clinical T2N0M0 carcinoma of thoracic esophagus.

Authors:  Timothy D Wagner; Nikhil Khushalani; Gary Y Yang
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging evaluation of esophageal cancer.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar; Robert W Henderson; Peter S Conti
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.488

8.  The early use of PET-CT alters the management of patients with esophageal cancer.

Authors:  R N Williams; S S Ubhi; C D Sutton; A L Thomas; J J Entwisle; D J Bowrey
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Positron emission tomography for staging esophageal cancer: does it lead to a different therapeutic approach?

Authors:  Werner Kneist; Mathias Schreckenberger; Peter Bartenstein; Frank Grünwald; Katja Oberholzer; Theodor Junginger
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2003-08-18       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 10.  PET/CT in oncology: for which tumours is it the reference standard?

Authors:  Conor D Collins
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.