OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of positron emission tomography with 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) for preoperative lymph node staging of patients with primary cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: FDG-PET appears to be a promising tool in the preoperative staging of cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Recent reports indicate a higher sensitivity and specificity for detection of stage IV disease and a higher specificity for diagnosis of lymph node involvement compared with the standard use of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound. METHODS: Forty-two patients entered the prospective study. All underwent attenuation-corrected FDG-PET imaging of the neck, thorax, and upper abdomen, a spiral computed tomography scan, and an endoscopic ultrasound. The gold standard consisted exclusively of the histology of sampled nodes obtained by extensive two-field or three-field lymphadenectomies (n = 39) or from guided biopsies of suspicious distant nodes indicated by imaging (n = 3). RESULTS: The FDG-PET scan had lower accuracy for the diagnosis of locoregional nodes (N1-2) than combined computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound (48% vs. 69%) because of a significant lack of sensitivity (22% vs. 83%). The accuracy for distant nodal metastasis (M+Ly), however, was significantly higher for FDG-PET than the combined use of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound (86% vs. 62%). Sensitivity was not significantly different, but specificity was greater (90% vs. 69%). The FDG-PET scan correctly upstaged five patients (12%) from N1-2 stage to M+Ly stage. One patient was falsely downstaged by FDG-PET scanning. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET scanning improves the clinical staging of lymph node involvement based on the increased detection of distant nodal metastases and on the superior specificity compared with conventional imaging modalities.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of positron emission tomography with 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) for preoperative lymph node staging of patients with primary cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: FDG-PET appears to be a promising tool in the preoperative staging of cancer of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. Recent reports indicate a higher sensitivity and specificity for detection of stage IV disease and a higher specificity for diagnosis of lymph node involvement compared with the standard use of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound. METHODS: Forty-two patients entered the prospective study. All underwent attenuation-corrected FDG-PET imaging of the neck, thorax, and upper abdomen, a spiral computed tomography scan, and an endoscopic ultrasound. The gold standard consisted exclusively of the histology of sampled nodes obtained by extensive two-field or three-field lymphadenectomies (n = 39) or from guided biopsies of suspicious distant nodes indicated by imaging (n = 3). RESULTS: The FDG-PET scan had lower accuracy for the diagnosis of locoregional nodes (N1-2) than combined computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound (48% vs. 69%) because of a significant lack of sensitivity (22% vs. 83%). The accuracy for distant nodal metastasis (M+Ly), however, was significantly higher for FDG-PET than the combined use of computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasound (86% vs. 62%). Sensitivity was not significantly different, but specificity was greater (90% vs. 69%). The FDG-PET scan correctly upstaged five patients (12%) from N1-2 stage to M+Ly stage. One patient was falsely downstaged by FDG-PET scanning. CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET scanning improves the clinical staging of lymph node involvement based on the increased detection of distant nodal metastases and on the superior specificity compared with conventional imaging modalities.
Authors: S Natsugoe; M Baba; H Yoshinaka; F Kijima; M Shimada; K Shirao; C Kusano; T Fukumoto; J Mueller; T Aikou Journal: Oncology Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: P Flamen; A Lerut; E Van Cutsem; W De Wever; M Peeters; S Stroobants; P Dupont; G Bormans; M Hiele; P De Leyn; D Van Raemdonck; W Coosemans; N Ectors; K Haustermans; L Mortelmans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Milan Vosmik; Jiri Petera; Igor Sirak; Miroslav Hodek; Petr Paluska; Jiri Dolezal; Marcela Kopacova Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-11-28 Impact factor: 5.742
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