INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic cancer recurrence is often difficult to detect by conventional imaging. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the diagnosis of recurrent pancreatic cancer. METHODS: One-hundred thirty-eight patients were followed after resection for pancreatic cancer. Sixty-six underwent only CT and were excluded. Seventy-two patients also had FDG-PET. Recurrent patients were divided in two groups: group-1, CT positive and group 2, CT non diagnostic, FDG-PET positive. Characteristics and survival curves of the two groups were compared. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Overall, tumors recurred in 63 of 72 (87.5%) patients; two patients had a second cancer resected, thanks to FDG-PET. Tumor relapse was detected by CT in 35 patients and by FDG-PET in 61. Prognostic factors were similar in groups 1 and 2. Five out of 35 group 1 patients underwent surgery (two R0, two bypass, and one exploratory). Ten out of 28 group 2 patients underwent surgery (four R0, two R2, two bypass, and two exploratory). FDG-PET influenced treatment strategies in 32 of 72 patients (44.4%). Group 2 patients survived longer (P = 0.09), but the difference was not significant. Disease-free survival was similar in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: Tumor relapse is detected earlier by FDG-PET than by CT. FDG-PET can help select the best candidates for surgical exploration, although the real benefit is still to be defined. It influences treatment strategies in a significant percentage of patients. An earlier diagnosis did not influence survival due to the lack of effective therapies.
INTRODUCTION:Pancreatic cancer recurrence is often difficult to detect by conventional imaging. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the diagnosis of recurrent pancreatic cancer. METHODS: One-hundred thirty-eight patients were followed after resection for pancreatic cancer. Sixty-six underwent only CT and were excluded. Seventy-two patients also had FDG-PET. Recurrent patients were divided in two groups: group-1, CT positive and group 2, CT non diagnostic, FDG-PET positive. Characteristics and survival curves of the two groups were compared. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Overall, tumors recurred in 63 of 72 (87.5%) patients; two patients had a second cancer resected, thanks to FDG-PET. Tumor relapse was detected by CT in 35 patients and by FDG-PET in 61. Prognostic factors were similar in groups 1 and 2. Five out of 35 group 1 patients underwent surgery (two R0, two bypass, and one exploratory). Ten out of 28 group 2 patients underwent surgery (four R0, two R2, two bypass, and two exploratory). FDG-PET influenced treatment strategies in 32 of 72 patients (44.4%). Group 2 patients survived longer (P = 0.09), but the difference was not significant. Disease-free survival was similar in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: Tumor relapse is detected earlier by FDG-PET than by CT. FDG-PET can help select the best candidates for surgical exploration, although the real benefit is still to be defined. It influences treatment strategies in a significant percentage of patients. An earlier diagnosis did not influence survival due to the lack of effective therapies.
Authors: S Pedrazzoli; H G Beger; H Obertop; A Andrén-Sandberg; L Fernández-Cruz; D Henne-Bruns; J Lüttges; J P Neoptolemos Journal: Dig Surg Date: 1999 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Timothy J Kinsella; Yuji Seo; Joseph Willis; Thomas A Stellato; Christopher T Siegel; Deborah Harpp; James K Willson; Joseph Gibbons; Juan R Sanabria; Jeffrey M Hardacre; James P Schulak Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.339
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: Manuel Röhrich; Patrick Naumann; Frederik L Giesel; Peter L Choyke; Fabian Staudinger; Annika Wefers; Dawn P Liew; Clemens Kratochwil; Hendrik Rathke; Jakob Liermann; Klaus Herfarth; Dirk Jäger; Jürgen Debus; Uwe Haberkorn; Matthias Lang; Stefan A Koerber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 10.057