HYPOTHESIS: Chemotherapeutic agents may be able to convert unresectable colorectal hepatic metastasis to resectable disease, therefore changing the surgical options. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) for patients undergoing chemotherapy remains unclear. We hypothesize that recent chemotherapy treatment could result in false-negative PET results. DESIGN: Case-control study evaluating PET findings. SETTING: The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. PATIENTS: From May 1, 2006, through August 31, 2008, data for 224 consecutive patients were entered into a prospective database for evaluation of hepatic metastasis of colorectal carcinoma. One hundred thirty-eight patients underwent PET and conventional imaging (a combination of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography). All had oncologically sound colorectal operations. INTERVENTIONS: Liver resection or ablation for colorectal liver metastases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine the accuracy of PET scans to detect residual viable colorectal cancer liver metastases after a significant response to systemic chemotherapy. RESULTS: Patients with biopsy-proven disease underwent hepatic resection (120 patients [87.0%]), radiofrequency ablation (2 [1.4%]), or resection with radiofrequency ablation (7 [5.1%]). Nine patients (6.5%) had inoperable disease that was found intraoperatively. When performed within 4 weeks of chemotherapy, PET had a negative predictive value of 13.3% and a positive predictive value of 94.3%. The sensitivity was 89.9%, the specificity was 22.2%, and the accuracy was 85.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography within 4 weeks of chemotherapy is not a useful test for evaluation of colorectal hepatic metastases. The high rate of false-negative results is likely due to metabolic inhibition caused by chemotherapeutic drugs. We recommend that physicians not use PET in patients recently completing chemotherapy; they should undergo the appropriate oncologic hepatic operation based on the high probability of viable malignant disease.
HYPOTHESIS: Chemotherapeutic agents may be able to convert unresectable colorectal hepatic metastasis to resectable disease, therefore changing the surgical options. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) for patients undergoing chemotherapy remains unclear. We hypothesize that recent chemotherapy treatment could result in false-negative PET results. DESIGN: Case-control study evaluating PET findings. SETTING: The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. PATIENTS: From May 1, 2006, through August 31, 2008, data for 224 consecutive patients were entered into a prospective database for evaluation of hepatic metastasis of colorectal carcinoma. One hundred thirty-eight patients underwent PET and conventional imaging (a combination of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasonography). All had oncologically sound colorectal operations. INTERVENTIONS: Liver resection or ablation for colorectal liver metastases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine the accuracy of PET scans to detect residual viable colorectal cancer liver metastases after a significant response to systemic chemotherapy. RESULTS:Patients with biopsy-proven disease underwent hepatic resection (120 patients [87.0%]), radiofrequency ablation (2 [1.4%]), or resection with radiofrequency ablation (7 [5.1%]). Nine patients (6.5%) had inoperable disease that was found intraoperatively. When performed within 4 weeks of chemotherapy, PET had a negative predictive value of 13.3% and a positive predictive value of 94.3%. The sensitivity was 89.9%, the specificity was 22.2%, and the accuracy was 85.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Positron emission tomography within 4 weeks of chemotherapy is not a useful test for evaluation of colorectal hepatic metastases. The high rate of false-negative results is likely due to metabolic inhibition caused by chemotherapeutic drugs. We recommend that physicians not use PET in patients recently completing chemotherapy; they should undergo the appropriate oncologic hepatic operation based on the high probability of viable malignant disease.
Authors: Haifaa Dbouk; Simon Mentha; Deborah Mukherji; Jean Lee; Ali Haydar; Ali Shamseddine; Eileen M O'Reilly; Leonard Saltz; Ghassan K Abou-Alfa Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2014-03
Authors: Camilo Correa-Gallego; Somali Gavane; Ravinder Grewal; Andrea Cercek; David S Klimstra; Alexandra N Gewirtz; T Peter Kingham; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Peter J Allen; William R Jarnagin; Nancy Kemeny; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Charlotte S van Kessel; Constantinus F M Buckens; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Minjong Lee; Tae Sung Yeum; Ji Won Kim; Sohee Oh; Shin Ae Lee; Hong Ran Moon; Young Hoon Choi; Yoo Min Han; Ji Min Choi; Dong Kee Jang Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Felipe José Fernandez Coimbra; Heber Salvador de Castro Ribeiro; Márcio Carmona Marques; Paulo Herman; Rubens Chojniak; Antonio Nocchi Kalil; Evanius Garcia Wiermann; Sandro Roberto de Araújo Cavallero; Fabricio Ferreira Coelho; Paulo Henrique de Souza Fernandes; Anderson Arantes Silvestrini; Maria Fernanda Arruda Almeida; Antônio Luis Eiras de Araújo; Marcos Pitombo; Heberton Medeiros Teixeira; Fábio Luiz Waechter; Fábio Gonçalves Ferreira; Alessandro Landskron Diniz; Giuseppe D'Ippolito; Giuseppe D'Ippolito; Maria Dirlei F de Sousa Begnami; Gabriel Prolla; Silvio Márcio Pegoraro Balzan; Thiago Bueno de Oliveira; Luís Arnaldo Szultan; Javier Lendoire; Orlando Jorge Martins Torres Journal: Arq Bras Cir Dig Date: 2015 Nov-Dec