PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for preoperative nodal staging of rectal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed in 53 patients with pathologically proven rectal cancer who had been referred for preoperative staging. All patients underwent integrated PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT followed by whole-body fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ([(18)F]FDG) PET. Both non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT images were evaluated separately by two observers in consensus. The reference standard was histopathologic results. For nodal staging of rectal cancer, we compared diagnostic accuracy on a per-patient basis between the two modalities. RESULTS: Nodal staging was correctly determined with non-enhanced studies in 37 patients (70%) and with contrast-enhanced studies in 42 patients (79%). On a per-patient basis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of regional lymph node staging were 85%, 68%, 83%, 72%, and 79%, respectively, with contrast-enhanced studies, and 85%, 42%, 73%, 62%, and 70%, respectively, with non-enhanced studies. The difference in the accuracy of nodal staging between the two modalities was not significant (p = 0.063). Compared with non-enhanced studies, contrast-enhanced studies determined more correctly the status of pararectal lymph nodes (p = 0.002), internal iliac lymph nodes (p = 0.004), and obturator lymph nodes (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced PET/CT is superior to non-enhanced PET/CT for precise definition of regional nodal status in rectal cancer.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for preoperative nodal staging of rectal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed in 53 patients with pathologically proven rectal cancer who had been referred for preoperative staging. All patients underwent integrated PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT followed by whole-body fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ([(18)F]FDG) PET. Both non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT images were evaluated separately by two observers in consensus. The reference standard was histopathologic results. For nodal staging of rectal cancer, we compared diagnostic accuracy on a per-patient basis between the two modalities. RESULTS: Nodal staging was correctly determined with non-enhanced studies in 37 patients (70%) and with contrast-enhanced studies in 42 patients (79%). On a per-patient basis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of regional lymph node staging were 85%, 68%, 83%, 72%, and 79%, respectively, with contrast-enhanced studies, and 85%, 42%, 73%, 62%, and 70%, respectively, with non-enhanced studies. The difference in the accuracy of nodal staging between the two modalities was not significant (p = 0.063). Compared with non-enhanced studies, contrast-enhanced studies determined more correctly the status of pararectal lymph nodes (p = 0.002), internal iliac lymph nodes (p = 0.004), and obturator lymph nodes (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced PET/CT is superior to non-enhanced PET/CT for precise definition of regional nodal status in rectal cancer.
Authors: L G Strauss; J H Clorius; P Schlag; B Lehner; B Kimmig; R Engenhart; M Marin-Grez; F Helus; F Oberdorfer; P Schmidlin Journal: Radiology Date: 1989-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M H Whiteford; H M Whiteford; L F Yee; O A Ogunbiyi; F Dehdashti; B A Siegel; E H Birnbaum; J W Fleshman; I J Kodner; T E Read Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Catherine Lejeune; Marie J Bismuth; Thierry Conroy; Catherine Zanni; Pierre Bey; Laurent Bedenne; Jean Faivre; Patrick Arveux; Francis Guillemin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P Flamen; S Stroobants; E Van Cutsem; P Dupont; G Bormans; N De Vadder; F Penninckx; L Van Hoe; L Mortelmans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shandra Bipat; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Emile F I Comans; Milan E J Pijl; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-08-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Florian F Behrendt; Yavuz Temur; Frederik A Verburg; Moritz Palmowski; Thomas Krohn; Hubertus Pietsch; Christiane K Kuhl; Felix M Mottaghy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alireza Ahmadian; Mohammad R Ay; Javad H Bidgoli; Saeed Sarkar; Habib Zaidi Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-04-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Thomas Pfluger; Henriette Ingrid Melzer; Vera Schneider; Christian La Fougere; Eva Coppenrath; Carola Berking; Peter Bartenstein; Mayo Weiss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Pier Paolo Mainenti; Delfina Iodice; Sabrina Segreto; Giovanni Storto; Mario Magliulo; Giovanni Domenico De Palma; Marco Salvatore; Leonardo Pace Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 5.742