PURPOSE: In recent years, combined modality therapy (CMT) with chemotherapy and radiation has replaced surgery as the preferred treatment for cancer of the anal canal. Clinical staging with computed tomography (CT) scan alone may underestimate the extent of disease. We investigated the utility of positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-deoxy-2[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) in the staging and determination of response to CMT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 1999 to August 2002, 21 patients with cancer of the anal canal were studied prospectively. All patients underwent pretreatment PET, in addition to standard clinical evaluation that included CT scanning. Follow-up PET studies were ordered one month after completion of CMT. RESULTS: Sites of metastases not observed on CT scan were identified in five of 21 patients (24%). These sites included pelvic lymph nodes (four patients) and distant omental metastasis (one patient). In another patient, PET confirmed the presence of suspected M(1) disease in the liver. Posttreatment PET imaging was less useful. Nine patients had minimal residual PET activity at the primary site on the one-month follow-up PET study, but only three of these subsequently developed local recurrence. In addition, recurrences occurred in three patients (two local, one distant) of the six who had negative posttreatment PET studies. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET, in conjunction with CT scanning, provides additional staging information in cancer of the anal canal. This information may have implications for prognosis and radiotherapy planning. Posttreatment PET scans appear to be of little value in predicting durability of response.
PURPOSE: In recent years, combined modality therapy (CMT) with chemotherapy and radiation has replaced surgery as the preferred treatment for cancer of the anal canal. Clinical staging with computed tomography (CT) scan alone may underestimate the extent of disease. We investigated the utility of positron emission tomography (PET) with 2-deoxy-2[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) in the staging and determination of response to CMT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 1999 to August 2002, 21 patients with cancer of the anal canal were studied prospectively. All patients underwent pretreatment PET, in addition to standard clinical evaluation that included CT scanning. Follow-up PET studies were ordered one month after completion of CMT. RESULTS: Sites of metastases not observed on CT scan were identified in five of 21 patients (24%). These sites included pelvic lymph nodes (four patients) and distant omental metastasis (one patient). In another patient, PET confirmed the presence of suspected M(1) disease in the liver. Posttreatment PET imaging was less useful. Nine patients had minimal residual PET activity at the primary site on the one-month follow-up PET study, but only three of these subsequently developed local recurrence. In addition, recurrences occurred in three patients (two local, one distant) of the six who had negative posttreatment PET studies. CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET, in conjunction with CT scanning, provides additional staging information in cancer of the anal canal. This information may have implications for prognosis and radiotherapy planning. Posttreatment PET scans appear to be of little value in predicting durability of response.
Authors: O A Ogunbiyi; F L Flanagan; F Dehdashti; B A Siegel; D D Trask; E H Birnbaum; J W Fleshman; T E Read; G W Philpott; I J Kodner Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: E Bastiaannet; H Groen; P L Jager; D C P Cobben; W T A van der Graaf; W Vaalburg; H J Hoekstra Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Maria De Santis; Alexander Becherer; Carsten Bokemeyer; Franz Stoiber; Karin Oechsle; Franz Sellner; Alois Lang; Kurt Kletter; Bernhard M Dohmen; Christian Dittrich; Jörg Pont Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I Frank Ciernik; Elena Dizendorf; Brigitta G Baumert; Beatrice Reiner; Cyrill Burger; J Bernard Davis; Urs M Lütolf; Hans C Steinert; Gustav K Von Schulthess Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Dimitrios Raptis; Ignaz Schneider; Klaus E Matzel; Oliver Ott; Rainer Fietkau; Werner Hohenberger Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 5.594