| Literature DB >> 20932345 |
Hoon Hur1, Sung Hoon Kim, Wook Kim, Kyo Young Song, Cho Hyun Park, Hae Myung Jeon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of preoperative 18FDG-PET/CT for gastric cancer remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of preoperative 18FDG-PET/CT on the surgical strategy for locally advanced gastric cancer retrospectively.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20932345 PMCID: PMC2964718 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-8-86
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Study results of patients who underwent induction chemotherapy without operation
| Primary | Local LN | Other uptake | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lung metastasis | 2.97 | 2.97 | Lung, Bone | Spine MRI |
| 2 | Peritoneal seeding | 6.81 | 5.44 | Mesentery | |
| 3 | Peritoneal seeding | 7.89 | 0 | Distal Esophagus | |
| 4 | Peritoneal seeding | 3.91 | 3.34 | Peritoneum | |
| 5 | Peritoneal seeding | 3.73 | 8.15 | Retroperitoneal LN | |
| 6 | Liver metastasis | 10.73 | 0 | Liver | Sono, Liver MRI |
| 7 | Liver metastasis | 7.26 | 12.18 | Liver | Sono |
| 8 | Peritoneal seeding | 2.4 | 0 | T-colon, Omentum, | |
| 9 | Liver metastasis | 11.9 | 0 | Liver | |
PET, positron emission tomography, CT, computed tomography, LN, lymph nodes, SUV, standardized uptake value, MRI, magnetic resonance imaging
Figure 1Treatment strategies for patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma. GFS = gastrofiberscopy, CT = computed tomography, O&C = open and closure, CTx = chemotherapy.
Preoperative and operative findings of PET/CT in patients who underwent operation (n = 133)
| Age(years) | < 60 | 53 | 46(86.8) | 7(12.1) | 0.734 | 11(20.8) | 42(79.2) | 0.811 |
| ≥ 60 | 80 | 71(88.8) | 9(10.7) | 18(22.5) | 62(77.5) | |||
| Gender | Male | 92 | 82(89.1) | 10(10.9) | 0.570 | 22(23.9) | 70(76.1) | 0.378 |
| Female | 41 | 35(85.4) | 6(14.6) | 7(17.1) | 34(82.9) | |||
| DM | Positive | 18 | 16(88.9) | 2(11.1) | 1.000 | 5(27.8) | 13(72.2) | 0.543 |
| Negative | 115 | 101(87.8) | 14(12.2) | 24(20.9) | 91(79.1) | |||
| Size(cm) | < 5 | 65 | 54(83.1) | 11(16.9) | 0.090 | 10(15.4) | 55(84.6) | 0.080 |
| ≥ 5 | 68 | 63(92.6) | 5(7.4) | 19(27.9) | 49(72.1) | |||
| Location | Upper | 22 | 20(90.9) | 2(9.1) | 1.000 | 5(22.7) | 17(77.3) | 0.909 |
| Middle and lower | 111 | 97(87.4) | 14(12.6) | 24(21.6) | 87(78.4) | |||
| Histology | Tubular carcinoma | 108 | 95(88.0) | 13(12.0) | 1.000 | 25(23.1) | 83(76.9) | 0.435 |
| Signet ring/mucinous | 25 | 22(88.0) | 3(12.0) | 4(16.0) | 21(84.0) | |||
| Curability | Curative operation | 99 | 84(84.8) | 15(15.2) | 0.047 | 14(14.1) | 85(85.9) | < 0.001 |
| Non-curative operation | 34 | 33(97.1) | 1(2.9) | 15(44.1) | 19(55.9) | |||
PET, positron emission tomography, CT, computed tomography, FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose, LN, lymph nodes, DM, diabetes mellitus
Figure 2Maximum SUV of primary tumor related to curative or non-curative operation. A: Box plot of maximum SUV of primary tumor in patients with curative or non-curative surgery; the mean values were significantly different between the two groups in an independent t-test (p < 0.001). B: Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve of maximum SUV of primary tumor for predicting non-curative operation. The area under the curve was 0.730 (p < 0.001, 0.629 <95% C.I. <0.831).
Prediction of non-curative operation in patients who underwent operation (n = 133)
| Enhanced CT Scan | 18 | 0.176 | 0.879 | 0.699 | 0.333 |
| Tumor SUV > 5 | 54 | 0.676 | 0.687 | 0.684 | 0.426 |
| Tumor SUV > 7 | 24 | 0.353 | 0.879 | 0.744 | 0.500 |
| Tumor SUV > 9 | 17 | 0.265 | 0.919 | 0.752 | 0.530 |
| Local LN | 29 | 0.441 | 0.859 | 0.752 | 0.517 |
| SUV > 5 and LN (+) | 21 | 0.352 | 0.910 | 0.767 | 0.571 |
CT, computed tomography, SUV, standardized uptake value, LN, lymph nodes