PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the value of combined PET/CT compared with PET reviewed side-by-side with CT, in patients with oesophageal cancer, before and after surgery. METHODS: Forty-one FDG PET/CT studies were performed in 32 patients with oesophageal cancer, before surgery (n = 18) or during follow-up after resection of the primary tumour (n = 23). One hundred and fifteen sites suspicious for malignancy were evaluated. PET/CT was prospectively compared with PET reviewed side-by-side with CT, for detection, accurate localisation and characterisation of malignant sites. PET/CT performance in different anatomical regions was compared before and after surgery. The impact of fused data on patient management was retrospectively assessed. RESULTS: PET/CT had an incremental value over PET for interpretation of 25 of 115 sites (22%), changing the initial characterisation of ten sites to either malignant (n = 1) or benign (n = 9), and defining the precise anatomical location of 15 sites. PET/CT provided better specificity and accuracy than PET for detecting sites of oesophageal cancer (81% and 90% vs 59% and 83% respectively, p < 0.01). Fusion was of special value for interpretation of cervical and abdomino-pelvic sites, for disease assessment in loco-regional lymph nodes before surgery and in regions of postoperative anatomical distortion. PET/CT had an impact on the further management of four patients (10%), by detecting nodal metastases that warranted disease upstaging (n = 2) and by excluding disease in sites of benign uptake after surgery (n = 2). CONCLUSION: PET/CT improves the accuracy of FDG imaging in oesophageal cancer and provides data of diagnostic and therapeutic significance for further patient management.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the value of combined PET/CT compared with PET reviewed side-by-side with CT, in patients with oesophageal cancer, before and after surgery. METHODS: Forty-one FDG PET/CT studies were performed in 32 patients with oesophageal cancer, before surgery (n = 18) or during follow-up after resection of the primary tumour (n = 23). One hundred and fifteen sites suspicious for malignancy were evaluated. PET/CT was prospectively compared with PET reviewed side-by-side with CT, for detection, accurate localisation and characterisation of malignant sites. PET/CT performance in different anatomical regions was compared before and after surgery. The impact of fused data on patient management was retrospectively assessed. RESULTS: PET/CT had an incremental value over PET for interpretation of 25 of 115 sites (22%), changing the initial characterisation of ten sites to either malignant (n = 1) or benign (n = 9), and defining the precise anatomical location of 15 sites. PET/CT provided better specificity and accuracy than PET for detecting sites of oesophageal cancer (81% and 90% vs 59% and 83% respectively, p < 0.01). Fusion was of special value for interpretation of cervical and abdomino-pelvic sites, for disease assessment in loco-regional lymph nodes before surgery and in regions of postoperative anatomical distortion. PET/CT had an impact on the further management of four patients (10%), by detecting nodal metastases that warranted disease upstaging (n = 2) and by excluding disease in sites of benign uptake after surgery (n = 2). CONCLUSION: PET/CT improves the accuracy of FDG imaging in oesophageal cancer and provides data of diagnostic and therapeutic significance for further patient management.
Authors: H L van Westreenen; M Westerterp; P M M Bossuyt; J Pruim; G W Sloof; J J B van Lanschot; H Groen; J Th M Plukker Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W A Weber; K Ott; K Becker; H J Dittler; H Helmberger; N E Avril; G Meisetschläger; R Busch; J R Siewert; M Schwaiger; U Fink Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L S Freudenberg; G Antoch; P Schütt; T Beyer; W Jentzen; S P Müller; R Görges; M R Nowrousian; A Bockisch; J F Debatin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2003-11-26 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Joerg Theisen; Bernd Krause; Christian Peschel; Roland Schmid; Hans Geinitz; Helmut Friess Journal: World J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2009-11-30
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
Authors: Johannes B Roedl; Elkan F Halpern; Rivka R Colen; Dushyant V Sahani; Alan J Fischman; Michael A Blake Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 3.488