OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of relevant colorectal neoplasms (adenomas > or =10 mm, with high-grade dysplasia, cancer) in relation to CT dose and contrast administration and to find a PET cut-off. METHODS: 84 patients, who underwent PET/CT and colonoscopy (n = 79)/sigmoidoscopy (n = 5) for (79 x 6 + 5 x 2) = 484 colonic segments, were included in a retrospective study. The accuracy of low-dose PET/CT in detecting mass-positive segments was evaluated by ROC analysis by two blinded independent reviewers relative to contrast-enhanced PET/CT. On a per-lesion basis characteristic PET values were tested as cut-offs. RESULTS: Low-dose PET/CT and contrast-enhanced PET/CT provide similar accuracies (area under the curve for the average ROC ratings 0.925 vs. 0.929, respectively). PET demonstrated all carcinomas (n = 23) and 83% (30/36) of relevant adenomas. In all carcinomas and adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (n = 10) the SUV(max) was > or =5. This cut-off resulted in a better per-segment sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) than the average PET/CT reviews (sensitivity: 89% vs. 82%; NPV: 99% vs. 98%). All other tested cut-offs were inferior to the SUV(max). CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT provides promising accuracy for colorectal mass detection. Low dose and lack of iodine contrast in the CT component do not impact the accuracy. The PET cut-off SUV(max) > or = 5 improves the accuracy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of relevant colorectal neoplasms (adenomas > or =10 mm, with high-grade dysplasia, cancer) in relation to CT dose and contrast administration and to find a PET cut-off. METHODS: 84 patients, who underwent PET/CT and colonoscopy (n = 79)/sigmoidoscopy (n = 5) for (79 x 6 + 5 x 2) = 484 colonic segments, were included in a retrospective study. The accuracy of low-dose PET/CT in detecting mass-positive segments was evaluated by ROC analysis by two blinded independent reviewers relative to contrast-enhanced PET/CT. On a per-lesion basis characteristic PET values were tested as cut-offs. RESULTS: Low-dose PET/CT and contrast-enhanced PET/CT provide similar accuracies (area under the curve for the average ROC ratings 0.925 vs. 0.929, respectively). PET demonstrated all carcinomas (n = 23) and 83% (30/36) of relevant adenomas. In all carcinomas and adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (n = 10) the SUV(max) was > or =5. This cut-off resulted in a better per-segment sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) than the average PET/CT reviews (sensitivity: 89% vs. 82%; NPV: 99% vs. 98%). All other tested cut-offs were inferior to the SUV(max). CONCLUSION:FDG-PET/CT provides promising accuracy for colorectal mass detection. Low dose and lack of iodine contrast in the CT component do not impact the accuracy. The PET cut-off SUV(max) > or = 5 improves the accuracy.
Authors: Mariëtte C A van Kouwen; Joost P H Drenth; J Han J M van Krieken; Harry van Goor; Pieter Friederich; Wim J G Oyen; Fokko M Nagengast Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Heiko Schöder; Mithat Gonen; Steven M Larson; Henry W D Yeung Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Julian Kirchner; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Firas Kour; Lino M Sawicki; Ole Martin; Johannes Bode; Stephan Vom Dahl; Verena Keitel; Dieter Häussinger; Christina Antke; Christian Buchbender; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: F B van Hoeij; R G M Keijsers; B C A J Loffeld; G Dun; P H G M Stadhouders; B L A M Weusten Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Bodil Elisabeth Engelmann; Annika Loft; Andreas Kjær; Hans Jørgen Nielsen; Anne Kiil Berthelsen; Tina Binderup; Kim Brinch; Nils Brünner; Thomas Alexander Gerds; Gunilla Høyer-Hansen; Michael Holmsgaard Kristensen; Engin Yeter Kurt; Jan Erik Latocha; Gunnar Lindblom; Carsten Sloth; Liselotte Højgaard Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.423
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: Wolfgang Luboldt; Baerbel Wiedemann; Sebastian Fischer; Boris Bodelle; Hans Joachim Luboldt; Frank Grünwald; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 2.175