PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent colorectal cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component. METHODS: One hundred seventy patients previously treated for colorectal cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast-enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months. RESULTS: Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 93.2 (69/74), 95.8 (92/96) and 94.7% (161/170), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 89.2 (66/74), 94.8 (91/96) and 92.4% (157/170), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 79.7 (59/74), 93.8 (90/96) and 87.6% (149/170), respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran's Q test: p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0001, respectively).The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 64 of the 170 patients (38%) and had an effect on patient management in 12 patients (7%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and 4 patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT. CONCLUSION: Integrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing colorectal cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.
PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of integrated positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) using (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) with IV contrast for depiction of suspected recurrent colorectal cancer and to assess the impact of PET/contrast-enhanced CT findings on clinical management compared with PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and CT component. METHODS: One hundred seventy patients previously treated for colorectal cancer underwent PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT for suspected recurrence. PET/contrast-enhanced CT, PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT were interpreted by two experienced radiologists by consensus for each investigation. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology, radiological imaging and clinical follow-up for longer than 6 months. RESULTS:Patient-based analysis showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 93.2 (69/74), 95.8 (92/96) and 94.7% (161/170), respectively, whereas those of PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT were 89.2 (66/74), 94.8 (91/96) and 92.4% (157/170), respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 79.7 (59/74), 93.8 (90/96) and 87.6% (149/170), respectively. Sensitivity and accuracy differed significantly among the three modalities (Cochran's Q test: p = 0.0004 and p = 0.0001, respectively).The findings of PET/contrast-enhanced CT resulted in a change of management for 64 of the 170 patients (38%) and had an effect on patient management in 12 patients (7%) diagnosed by enhanced CT alone and 4 patients (2%) diagnosed by PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT. CONCLUSION: Integrated PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing colorectal cancer recurrence and led to changes in the subsequent appropriate therapy.
Authors: R Edward Coleman; Dominique Delbeke; Milton J Guiberteau; Peter S Conti; Henry D Royal; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Barry A Siegel; Michael F Federle; David W Townsend; Lincoln L Berland Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anna C Pfannenberg; Philip Aschoff; Klaus Brechtel; Mark Müller; Roland Bares; Frank Paulsen; Jutta Scheiderbauer; Godehard Friedel; Claus D Claussen; Susanne M Eschmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-08-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jong-Ho Kim; Johannes Czernin; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Benjamin S Halpern; Barbara J Fueger; Joel R Hecht; Osman Ratib; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Farshad Abir; Suraj Alva; Walter E Longo; Riccardo Audiso; Katherine S Virgo; Frank E Johnson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.565
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: Niklaus G Schaefer; Thomas F Hany; Christian Taverna; Burkhardt Seifert; Katrin D M Stumpe; Gustav K von Schulthess; Gerhard W Goerres Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-07-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Florian F Behrendt; Marilou Rebière; Andreas Goedicke; Hubertus Pietsch; Karin Palmowski; Christiane K Kuhl; Felix M Mottaghy; Frederik A Verburg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mi-Jung Lee; Mi Jin Yun; Mi-Suk Park; Seung Hwan Cha; Myeong-Jin Kim; Jong Doo Lee; Ki Whang Kim Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: C Brendle; N F Schwenzer; H Rempp; H Schmidt; C Pfannenberg; C la Fougère; K Nikolaou; C Schraml Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236