AIM: The aims of the present study were: (i) to evaluate the focal incidental colorectal uptake of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ([(18)F]FDG) and to correlate it with colonoscopy and histological findings; (ii) to evaluate the relationship between the presence/absence of neoplastic disease and clinical data and the anatomical site of [(18)F]FDG uptake; and (iii) to compare our results with those reported for incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG in the literature and those obtained from various screening programmes for colorectal cancer. METHOD: The database of 6000 patients referred for [(18)F]FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET-CT) to our centre was retrospectively reviewed for incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG. Patients with focal uptake were selected and the aetiology of PET findings was verified with a subsequent colonoscopy and histopathological analysis when available. RESULTS: Incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG was seen in 144 (2.4%) patients, of whom 64 (1.1%) had focal uptake; 48 out of these 64 patients underwent colonoscopy, which showed malignant tumours in 12 (25%), premalignant lesions in 19 (40%), non-neoplastic lesions in six (12%) and lesions not confirmed by colonoscopy in 11 (23%). Our data agreed with previously published data. Statistical analysis did not show any significant relationship between the presence/absence of neoplastic disease and patient sex or age, type of primary disease and anatomical site of [(18)F]FDG uptake. Comparing our data with various screening programmes, a significant difference was found only with series in which colonoscopy was performed in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Focal incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG is observed in about 1% of PET/CT studies and carries a high risk of neoplastic disease. A PET-CT report should suggest colonoscopy when abnormal findings are reported.
AIM: The aims of the present study were: (i) to evaluate the focal incidental colorectal uptake of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ([(18)F]FDG) and to correlate it with colonoscopy and histological findings; (ii) to evaluate the relationship between the presence/absence of neoplastic disease and clinical data and the anatomical site of [(18)F]FDG uptake; and (iii) to compare our results with those reported for incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG in the literature and those obtained from various screening programmes for colorectal cancer. METHOD: The database of 6000 patients referred for [(18)F]FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET-CT) to our centre was retrospectively reviewed for incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG. Patients with focal uptake were selected and the aetiology of PET findings was verified with a subsequent colonoscopy and histopathological analysis when available. RESULTS: Incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG was seen in 144 (2.4%) patients, of whom 64 (1.1%) had focal uptake; 48 out of these 64 patients underwent colonoscopy, which showed malignant tumours in 12 (25%), premalignant lesions in 19 (40%), non-neoplastic lesions in six (12%) and lesions not confirmed by colonoscopy in 11 (23%). Our data agreed with previously published data. Statistical analysis did not show any significant relationship between the presence/absence of neoplastic disease and patient sex or age, type of primary disease and anatomical site of [(18)F]FDG uptake. Comparing our data with various screening programmes, a significant difference was found only with series in which colonoscopy was performed in patients at high risk for colorectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Focal incidental colorectal uptake of [(18)F]FDG is observed in about 1% of PET/CT studies and carries a high risk of neoplastic disease. A PET-CT report should suggest colonoscopy when abnormal findings are reported.
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: Marc C Mabray; Spencer C Behr; David M Naeger; Robert R Flavell; Christine M Glastonbury Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 1.605