PURPOSE: To assess the correlations between parameters measured on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess the correlations between parameters measured on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and FDG-PET in rectal cancer. RESULTS: Significant correlations were only demonstrated between k(ep) and SUVmax (r = 0.587, P = 0.001), and k(ep) and SUVmean (r = 0.562, P = 0.002). No significant differences were found in imaging parameters between well, moderately and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma groups. However, there was a trend that higher imaging values were found in poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSION: Positive correlations were found between k(ep) and SUV values in primary rectal adenocarcinomas suggesting an association between angiogenesis and metabolic activity and further reflecting that angiogenic activity in washout phase is better associated with tumor metabolism than the uptake phase.
PURPOSE: To assess the correlations between parameters measured on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To assess the correlations between parameters measured on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and FDG-PET in rectal cancer. RESULTS: Significant correlations were only demonstrated between k(ep) and SUVmax (r = 0.587, P = 0.001), and k(ep) and SUVmean (r = 0.562, P = 0.002). No significant differences were found in imaging parameters between well, moderately and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma groups. However, there was a trend that higher imaging values were found in poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSION: Positive correlations were found between k(ep) and SUV values in primary rectal adenocarcinomas suggesting an association between angiogenesis and metabolic activity and further reflecting that angiogenic activity in washout phase is better associated with tumor metabolism than the uptake phase.
Authors: Nathaniel E Margolis; Linda Moy; Eric E Sigmund; Melanie Freed; Jason McKellop; Amy N Melsaether; Sungheon Gene Kim Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Marjan S Bolouri; Sjoerd G Elias; Dorota J Wisner; Spencer C Behr; Randall A Hawkins; Sachiko A Suzuki; Krysta S Banfield; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hye-Suk Hong; Se Hoon Kim; Hae-Jeong Park; Mi-Suk Park; Ki Whang Kim; Won Ho Kim; Nam Kyu Kim; Jae Mun Lee; Hyeon Je Cho Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2013-01-01 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Roberto García-Figueiras; Sandra Baleato-González; Anwar R Padhani; Ana Marhuenda; Antonio Luna; Lidia Alcalá; Ana Carballo-Castro; Ana Álvarez-Castro Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2016-04-30