UNLABELLED: The aims of our study were to examine the impact of PET in changing management in patients with proven or suspected colorectal cancer recurrence and to assess the impact of management change on disease-free survival. METHODS: Symptomatic patients with a residual structural lesion suggestive of recurrent tumor (group A) or patients with pulmonary or hepatic metastases considered to be potentially resectable (group B) underwent PET scans. Pre-PET management plans were documented by referring clinicians unaware of the PET results, and follow-up to 12 mo was performed to determine actual management and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients (118 men and 73 women; mean age, 66 y) were studied. PET detected additional sites of disease in 48.4% of patients in group A and in 43.9% of patients in group B. A change in planned management was documented in 65.6% of group A and in 49.0% of group B patients. These management plans were implemented in 96% of patients. Follow-up data in group A showed progressive disease in 60.5% of patients with additional lesions detected by PET, compared with conventional imaging, and in 36.2% of patients with no additional lesions detected by PET (P=0.04). In group B, progressive disease was identified in 65.9% of patients with additional lesions detected by PET and in 39.2% of patients with no additional lesions detected by PET (P=0.01). PET also provided valuable prognostic information on patients stratified into curative- or palliative-intent groups. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the significant impact of PET on management and outcomes in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer.
UNLABELLED: The aims of our study were to examine the impact of PET in changing management in patients with proven or suspected colorectal cancer recurrence and to assess the impact of management change on disease-free survival. METHODS: Symptomatic patients with a residual structural lesion suggestive of recurrent tumor (group A) or patients with pulmonary or hepatic metastases considered to be potentially resectable (group B) underwent PET scans. Pre-PET management plans were documented by referring clinicians unaware of the PET results, and follow-up to 12 mo was performed to determine actual management and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 191 patients (118 men and 73 women; mean age, 66 y) were studied. PET detected additional sites of disease in 48.4% of patients in group A and in 43.9% of patients in group B. A change in planned management was documented in 65.6% of group A and in 49.0% of group B patients. These management plans were implemented in 96% of patients. Follow-up data in group A showed progressive disease in 60.5% of patients with additional lesions detected by PET, compared with conventional imaging, and in 36.2% of patients with no additional lesions detected by PET (P=0.04). In group B, progressive disease was identified in 65.9% of patients with additional lesions detected by PET and in 39.2% of patients with no additional lesions detected by PET (P=0.01). PET also provided valuable prognostic information on patients stratified into curative- or palliative-intent groups. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the significant impact of PET on management and outcomes in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer.
Authors: Christina E Bailey; Chung-Yuan Hu; Y Nancy You; Harmeet Kaur; Randy D Ernst; George J Chang Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: S T Lee; V Muralidharan; N Tebbutt; P Wong; C Fang; Z Liu; H Gan; J Sachinidis; K Pathmaraj; C Christophi; A M Scott Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Tracy Onega; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Arun Azad; Fiona Chionh; Andrew M Scott; Szeting T Lee; Sam U Berlangieri; Shane White; Paul L Mitchell Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Bruce E Hillner; Lucy Hanna; Rajesh Makineni; Fenghai Duan; Anthony F Shields; Rathan M Subramaniam; Ilana Gareen; Barry A Siegel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 10.057