Literature DB >> 11734925

Carbon-11 choline or FDG-PET for staging of oesophageal cancer?

P L Jager1, T H Que, W Vaalburg, J Pruim, P Elsinga, J T Plukker.   

Abstract

We investigated the feasibility of using carbon-11 choline (CHOL) positron emission tomography (PET) for the staging of oesophageal cancer, in comparison with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET, using histopathological findings as the gold standard. Eighteen patients were studied: 16 patients with cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction and two with in situ carcinoma/high-grade dysplasia. PET imaging was performed 5 min (CHOL) or 90 min (FDG) after injection of 370 MBq of the tracer. PET images were analysed by two independent and blinded physicians using visual and standardised uptake value (SUV) analysis. PET results were compared with surgical and histopathological findings. FDG-PET was able to detect all (100%) of the 16 malignant primary lesions, while CHOL-PET detected 73%. In situ carcinoma ( n=1) and high-grade dysplasia ( n=1) were not visualised with either tracer. Diffuse uptake of the tracers was noted in areas of Barrett's oesophagitis. Twelve patients had locoregional metastases (N1) that were not detected with either FDG or CHOL. Six patients had additional distant nodal (M1a) metastases; four of six (66%) were visualised by FDG, and three of five (60%) by CHOL-PET. On a lesion basis, FDG-PET detected 10/12 non-regional metastases (sensitivity 83%), while CHOL-PET detected 5/12 (sensitivity 42%). Haematogenous distant metastases (M1b) were positive on FDG-PET in three of four patients, and on CHOL-PET in two of four. SUV values were significantly higher for FDG (FDG 6.6+/-3.5, CHOL 5.5+/-2.5, P=0.04). CHOL-PET is able to visualise oesophageal carcinoma and its metastases, but appears to be inferior to FDG-PET. Presumably this is the result of lower tumoural uptake and considerable non-specific uptake of CHOL in liver, stomach wall, pancreas and small intestine. Further studies are needed to confirm these data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11734925     DOI: 10.1007/s002590100655

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0340-6997


  10 in total

1.  Oncologic positron emission tomography: a surgical perspective.

Authors:  Todd O Moore; Landis K Griffeth
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2003-01

2.  Endoscopic evaluation of gastrointestinal lesions noted incidentally on PET scanning.

Authors:  Donald S David; Glen R Gibson; Frederic Grannis
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  A suspected [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-negative metastatic lymph node successfully diagnosed by laparoscopic staging in esophageal cancer: report of two cases.

Authors:  Atsushi Takeno; Shuji Takiguchi; Makoto Yamasaki; Hiroshi Miyata; Ryohei Kawabata; Yoichiro Nushijima; Tomoki Makino; Yoshiyuki Fujiwara; Kiyokazu Nakajima; Toshiro Nishida; Masaki Mori; Yuichiro Doki
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2009-09-27       Impact factor: 2.549

4.  Current imaging strategies in rheumatoid arthritis.

Authors:  Merissa N Zeman; Peter Jh Scott
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-03-28

Review 5.  PET with (18)F-labelled choline-based tracers for tumour imaging: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Koen Mertens; Dominique Slaets; Bieke Lambert; Marjan Acou; Filip De Vos; Ingeborg Goethals
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 6.  Role of ¹⁸F 2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in upper gastrointestinal malignancies.

Authors:  Elizabeth C Smyth; Manish A Shah
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  18FDG uptake in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: linking biology and outcome.

Authors:  Marinke Westerterp; Gerrit W Sloof; Otto S Hoekstra; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Gerrit A Meijer; Johannes B Reitsma; Ronald Boellaard; J Jan B van Lanschot; Carla F M Molthoff
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-07-25       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 8.  Molecular imaging: what can be used today.

Authors:  P L Jager; M A de Korte; M N Lub-de Hooge; A van Waarde; K P Koopmans; P J Perik; E G E de Vries
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 3.909

9.  F-18-FDG and C-11-Choline Positron Emission Tomography in Human Esophago-Gastric Cancer: Prediction of Response to Therapy.

Authors:  Stuart Suttie; Dympna McAteer; Margaret Sheehan; Marianne Nicolson; Lutz Schweiger; Solveig Hammonds; Timothy Smith; Andrew Welch; Kenneth Park
Journal:  World J Oncol       Date:  2010-04-30

Review 10.  Positron Emission Tomography Imaging of Tumor Cell Metabolism and Application to Therapy Response Monitoring.

Authors:  Amarnath Challapalli; Eric O Aboagye
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 6.244

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.