BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the impact of FDG-PET scan on tumour staging and management decisions in oesophageal cancer. METHODS: One-hundred consecutive patients referred for consideration of surgery underwent a whole body FDG-PET scan in addition to CT imaging. RESULTS: Based on CT scan, a curative approach could be considered in 62 patients. The PET scan altered regional nodal (N) staging in 16 patients overall, but did not alter management decisions. Metastatic status (M) was increased in 14 patients, with altered management in 10/62 (16%). Nine were downstaged, with management changed in 3/38 (8%). Seventeen patients underwent 19 additional tests to clarify findings on PET, in 15 patients (88%) the tests revealed no pathology. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET alters M stage in 23% of patients and may impact on surgical decision-making. The spurious investigations and cost of the high false-positive rate of further tests is of concern.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the impact of FDG-PET scan on tumour staging and management decisions in oesophageal cancer. METHODS: One-hundred consecutive patients referred for consideration of surgery underwent a whole body FDG-PET scan in addition to CT imaging. RESULTS: Based on CT scan, a curative approach could be considered in 62 patients. The PET scan altered regional nodal (N) staging in 16 patients overall, but did not alter management decisions. Metastatic status (M) was increased in 14 patients, with altered management in 10/62 (16%). Nine were downstaged, with management changed in 3/38 (8%). Seventeen patients underwent 19 additional tests to clarify findings on PET, in 15 patients (88%) the tests revealed no pathology. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET alters M stage in 23% of patients and may impact on surgical decision-making. The spurious investigations and cost of the high false-positive rate of further tests is of concern.
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: Henderik L van Westreenen; Pierre A M Heeren; Hendrik M van Dullemen; Eric J van der Jagt; Pieter L Jager; Henk Groen; John Th M Plukker Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: F Fiorica; D Di Bona; F Schepis; A Licata; L Shahied; A Venturi; A M Falchi; A Craxì; C Cammà Journal: Gut Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Loretta Erhunmwunsee; Brian R Englum; Mark W Onaitis; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark F Berry Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: B E Chatterton; I Ho Shon; A Baldey; N Lenzo; A Patrikeos; B Kelley; D Wong; J E Ramshaw; A M Scott Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 9.236