PURPOSE: This prospective single-centre phase II trial assessed the diagnostic impact of (18)F-FDG PET-CT in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions (phi >or= 10 mm) compared to endosonography (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) with intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), abdominal ultrasound (US) and histopathological reference. METHODS: Forty-six patients (32 men/14 women, phi 61.7 years) with suspected pancreatic neoplasms underwent PET-CT with contrast-enhanced biphasic multi-detector CT of the upper abdomen followed by a diagnostic work-up with EUS, ERCP with IDUS and US within 3 weeks. PET-CT data sets were analysed by two expert readers in a consensus reading. Histology from surgery, biopsy/fine-needle aspiration and/or clinical follow-up >or=12 months served as standard of reference. RESULTS: Twenty-seven pancreatic malignancies were histopathologically proven; 19 patients had benign diseases: 36/46 lesions (78%) were detected in the head of the pancreas, 7/46 and 3/46 in the body and tail region, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 89% and 74%, respectively; positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 83% and 82%, respectively. Sensitivity (81-89%), specificity (74-88%), PPV (83-90%) and NPV (77-82%) achieved by EUS, ERCP and US were not significantly different. PET analysis revealed significantly higher maximum mean standardised uptake values (SUV(max) 6.5+/-4.6) in patients with pancreatic malignancy (benign lesions: SUV(max) 4.2+/-1.5; p<0.05). PET-CT revealed cervical lymphonodal metastasis from occult bronchogenic carcinoma and a tubular colon adenoma with intermediate dysplasia on polypectomy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FDG PET-CT achieves a comparably high diagnostic impact evaluating small solid pancreatic lesions versus conventional reference imaging modalities. Additional clinical diagnoses are derived from concomitant whole-body PET-CT imaging.
PURPOSE: This prospective single-centre phase II trial assessed the diagnostic impact of (18)F-FDG PET-CT in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions (phi >or= 10 mm) compared to endosonography (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) with intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), abdominal ultrasound (US) and histopathological reference. METHODS: Forty-six patients (32 men/14 women, phi 61.7 years) with suspected pancreatic neoplasms underwent PET-CT with contrast-enhanced biphasic multi-detector CT of the upper abdomen followed by a diagnostic work-up with EUS, ERCP with IDUS and US within 3 weeks. PET-CT data sets were analysed by two expert readers in a consensus reading. Histology from surgery, biopsy/fine-needle aspiration and/or clinical follow-up >or=12 months served as standard of reference. RESULTS: Twenty-seven pancreatic malignancies were histopathologically proven; 19 patients had benign diseases: 36/46 lesions (78%) were detected in the head of the pancreas, 7/46 and 3/46 in the body and tail region, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of PET-CT were 89% and 74%, respectively; positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 83% and 82%, respectively. Sensitivity (81-89%), specificity (74-88%), PPV (83-90%) and NPV (77-82%) achieved by EUS, ERCP and US were not significantly different. PET analysis revealed significantly higher maximum mean standardised uptake values (SUV(max) 6.5+/-4.6) in patients with pancreatic malignancy (benign lesions: SUV(max) 4.2+/-1.5; p<0.05). PET-CT revealed cervical lymphonodal metastasis from occult bronchogenic carcinoma and a tubular colon adenoma with intermediate dysplasia on polypectomy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: (18)F-FDG PET-CT achieves a comparably high diagnostic impact evaluating small solid pancreatic lesions versus conventional reference imaging modalities. Additional clinical diagnoses are derived from concomitant whole-body PET-CT imaging.
Authors: A Imdahl; E Nitzsche; F Krautmann; S Högerle; S Boos; A Einert; J Sontheimer; E H Farthmann Journal: Br J Surg Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: G Adler; T Seufferlein; S C Bischoff; H-J Brambs; S Feuerbach; G Grabenbauer; S Hahn; V Heinemann; W Hohenberger; J M Langrehr; M P Lutz; O Micke; H Neuhaus; P Neuhaus; H Oettle; P M Schlag; R Schmid; W Schmiegel; K Schlottmann; J Werner; B Wiedenmann; I Kopp Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: A Quon; S T Chang; F Chin; A Kamaya; D W Dick; B W Loo; S S Gambhir; A C Koong Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Taylor Murray; Alicia Samuels; Asma Ghafoor; Elizabeth Ward; Michael J Thun Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: John DeWitt; Benedict Devereaux; Melissa Chriswell; Kathleen McGreevy; Thomas Howard; Thomas F Imperiale; Donato Ciaccia; Kathleen A Lane; Dean Maglinte; Kenyon Kopecky; Julia LeBlanc; Lee McHenry; James Madura; Alex Aisen; Harvey Cramer; Oscar Cummings; Stuart Sherman Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Dushyant V Sahani; Pietro A Bonaffini; Onofrio A Catalano; Alexander R Guimaraes; Michael A Blake Journal: Radiographics Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17