OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT and MR with diffusion-weighted imaging (MR-DWI) for diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients referred for staging of gastrointestinal malignancy underwent FDG-PET/CT and MR-DWI in this retrospective study. Extent of PC was characterised by dividing the peritoneal cavity into three sites in each patient: right and left supramesocolic areas and inframesocolic level (total 90 sites). Presence of PC was confirmed either by surgery (18/30) or by follow-up (12/30). RESULTS: PC was confirmed in 19 patients (19/30). At a total of 90 sites, 27 showed proven PC. On a patient-based analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were respectively 84%, 73%, 84%, 73% and 80% for PET/CT and 84%, 82%, 89%, 75% and 83% for MR-DWI. On a site-based analysis, overall sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT (63%, 90%) and MR-DWI (74%, 97%) were not statistically different (P = 0.27). In the supramesocolic area, MR-DWI detected more sites involved than PET/CT (7/9 vs. 4/9). The sensitivities of PET and MR were lower for subcentimetre tumour implants (42%, 50%). Interobserver agreement was very good for PET/CT and good for MR-DWI. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET/CT and MR-DWI showed similar high accuracy in diagnosing PC. Both techniques underestimated the real extent of PC because of decreased sensitivity for subcentimetre lesions. KEY POINTS: FDG-PET/CT and MR-DWI showed similar high accuracy for diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis. • In the supramesocolic area, MR-DWI could be more sensitive than PET/CT. • Both techniques showed lower sensitivity for subcentimetre lesions. • Interobserver agreement was very good for PET/CT and good for MR-DWI.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of FDG-PET/CT and MR with diffusion-weighted imaging (MR-DWI) for diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients referred for staging of gastrointestinal malignancy underwent FDG-PET/CT and MR-DWI in this retrospective study. Extent of PC was characterised by dividing the peritoneal cavity into three sites in each patient: right and left supramesocolic areas and inframesocolic level (total 90 sites). Presence of PC was confirmed either by surgery (18/30) or by follow-up (12/30). RESULTS: PC was confirmed in 19 patients (19/30). At a total of 90 sites, 27 showed proven PC. On a patient-based analysis, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were respectively 84%, 73%, 84%, 73% and 80% for PET/CT and 84%, 82%, 89%, 75% and 83% for MR-DWI. On a site-based analysis, overall sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT (63%, 90%) and MR-DWI (74%, 97%) were not statistically different (P = 0.27). In the supramesocolic area, MR-DWI detected more sites involved than PET/CT (7/9 vs. 4/9). The sensitivities of PET and MR were lower for subcentimetre tumour implants (42%, 50%). Interobserver agreement was very good for PET/CT and good for MR-DWI. CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET/CT and MR-DWI showed similar high accuracy in diagnosing PC. Both techniques underestimated the real extent of PC because of decreased sensitivity for subcentimetre lesions. KEY POINTS: FDG-PET/CT and MR-DWI showed similar high accuracy for diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis. • In the supramesocolic area, MR-DWI could be more sensitive than PET/CT. • Both techniques showed lower sensitivity for subcentimetre lesions. • Interobserver agreement was very good for PET/CT and good for MR-DWI.
Authors: Vic J Verwaal; Serge van Ruth; Eeclo de Bree; Gooike W van Sloothen; Harm van Tinteren; Henk Boot; Frans A N Zoetmulder Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: O Glehen; F Kwiatkowski; P H Sugarbaker; D Elias; E A Levine; M De Simone; R Barone; Y Yonemura; F Cavaliere; F Quenet; M Gutman; A A K Tentes; G Lorimier; J L Bernard; J M Bereder; J Porcheron; A Gomez-Portilla; P Shen; M Deraco; P Rat Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eelco de Bree; Wim Koops; Robert Kröger; Serge van Ruth; Arjen J Witkamp; Frans A N Zoetmulder Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Christina Pfannenberg; Ingmar Königsrainer; Philip Aschoff; Mehmet O Oksüz; Derek Zieker; Stefan Beckert; Stephan Symons; Kay Nieselt; Jörg Glatzle; Claus V Weyhern; Björn L Brücher; Claus D Claussen; Alfred Königsrainer Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-02-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Frank J Wessels; Marcel Verheij; Edwin P M Jansen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Katrijn Michielsen; Ignace Vergote; Katya Op de Beeck; Frederic Amant; Karin Leunen; Philippe Moerman; Christophe Deroose; Geert Souverijns; Steven Dymarkowski; Frederik De Keyzer; Vincent Vandecaveye Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Bryan Q Spring; Adnan O Abu-Yousif; Akilan Palanisami; Imran Rizvi; Xiang Zheng; Zhiming Mai; Sriram Anbil; R Bryan Sears; Lawrence B Mensah; Ruth Goldschmidt; S Sibel Erdem; Esther Oliva; Tayyaba Hasan Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Marius E Mayerhoefer; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Michael Weber; Markus Mitterhauser; Harald Eidherr; Wolfgang Wadsak; Markus Raderer; Siegfried Trattnig; Andreas Herneth; Georgios Karanikas Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C Brendle; N F Schwenzer; H Rempp; H Schmidt; C Pfannenberg; C la Fougère; K Nikolaou; C Schraml Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236