BACKGROUND: We compared the usefulness of positron emission tomography with the glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG-PET) and multidetector-row computed tomography (MD-CT) in diagnosing pancreatic cancer and in determining the patients' suitability for surgery. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical FDG-PET data of 103 consecutive pancreatic cancer patients between July 2004 and March 2009. RESULTS: The detection rates of pancreatic cancer by MD-CT (89%) and FDG-PET (91%) were similar. From the MD-CT findings, 38 patients were judged as operable, and 65, inoperable. Among the inoperable patients, noncurative factors (metastasis to the liver, peritoneum, remote lymph nodes, bones, and other organs and major arterial invasion) were detected by MD-CT and/or FDG-PET. Detection rates of liver metastasis and arterial invasion by FDG-PET were significantly inferior to those of MD-CT (neither was detected by FDG-PET alone). Remote lymph nodes and bone metastasis were detected in 20 lesions by FDG-PET alone; however, MD-CT indicated other noncurative factors in these patients. All 65 patients could be diagnosed as inoperable without FDG-PET. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET is not a suitable imaging modality for either diagnosis or preoperative treatment in pancreatic cancer patients. Since it is expensive, FDG-PET as a routine diagnostic tool in pancreatic cancer patients must be used with caution.
BACKGROUND: We compared the usefulness of positron emission tomography with the glucose analogue 2-deoxy-2-[18F]-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG-PET) and multidetector-row computed tomography (MD-CT) in diagnosing pancreatic cancer and in determining the patients' suitability for surgery. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical FDG-PET data of 103 consecutive pancreatic cancerpatients between July 2004 and March 2009. RESULTS: The detection rates of pancreatic cancer by MD-CT (89%) and FDG-PET (91%) were similar. From the MD-CT findings, 38 patients were judged as operable, and 65, inoperable. Among the inoperable patients, noncurative factors (metastasis to the liver, peritoneum, remote lymph nodes, bones, and other organs and major arterial invasion) were detected by MD-CT and/or FDG-PET. Detection rates of liver metastasis and arterial invasion by FDG-PET were significantly inferior to those of MD-CT (neither was detected by FDG-PET alone). Remote lymph nodes and bone metastasis were detected in 20 lesions by FDG-PET alone; however, MD-CT indicated other noncurative factors in these patients. All 65 patients could be diagnosed as inoperable without FDG-PET. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET is not a suitable imaging modality for either diagnosis or preoperative treatment in pancreatic cancerpatients. Since it is expensive, FDG-PET as a routine diagnostic tool in pancreatic cancerpatients must be used with caution.
Authors: Helmut Oettle; Stefan Post; Peter Neuhaus; Klaus Gellert; Jan Langrehr; Karsten Ridwelski; Harald Schramm; Joerg Fahlke; Carl Zuelke; Christof Burkart; Klaus Gutberlet; Erika Kettner; Harald Schmalenberg; Karin Weigang-Koehler; Wolf-Otto Bechstein; Marco Niedergethmann; Ingo Schmidt-Wolf; Lars Roll; Bernd Doerken; Hanno Riess Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-01-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Darren D D Brennan; Giulia A Zamboni; Vassilios D Raptopoulos; Jonathan B Kruskal Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Marta Zafra; Francisco Ayala; Enrique Gonzalez-Billalabeitia; Elena Vicente; Pedro Gonzalez-Cabezas; Teresa García; José A Macías; Vicente Vicente Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-07-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Yael Vin; Camelia S Sima; George I Getrajdman; Karen T Brown; Anne Covey; Murray F Brennan; Peter J Allen Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Evelina Miele; Gian Paolo Spinelli; Federica Tomao; Angelo Zullo; Filippo De Marinis; Giulia Pasciuti; Luigi Rossi; Federica Zoratto; Silverio Tomao Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-10-17
Authors: Matthew E Burge; Nick O'Rourke; David Cavallucci; Richard Bryant; Alessandra Francesconi; Kathleen Houston; David Wyld; Melissa Eastgate; Robert Finch; George Hopkins; Paul Thomas; David Macfarlane Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17
Authors: Thiruvengadam Arumugam; Vijaya Ramachandran; Duoli Sun; Zhenghong Peng; Ashutosh Pal; David S Maxwell; William G Bornmann; Craig D Logsdon Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 6.261