AIM: This study aims to determine the role of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in changing the management plan in patients with metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) and to evaluate the role of PET/CT in patients with an unexplained rise in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 consecutive patients with CRC, who had PET/CT, were identified between 2008 and 2010. All patients had CT scans prior to the PET/CT. Data were collected from clinic letters, CT and PET CT reports and pathology results and cross-checked with the patient's notes. RESULTS: Patients were aged between 43 and 85 years [33 males, 27 females]. CEA was raised in 37 patients and normal in 23. Results of PET/CT were compared with that of CT scan and 33 out of the 60 patients (55%) had PET/CT results which were different to that of CT scan and 27 patients (45%) had similar PET/CT and CT results. PET scan appropriately altered the management in 23/60 patients (38%) and avoided unnecessary surgery in 14 patients. PET/CT had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 84%. In patients with an unexplained rise in CEA, PET/CT was positive in only one out of ten (10%) patients. CONCLUSION: PET/CT is valuable in deciding the management outcome in patients with metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer. Unnecessary surgery might be avoided by careful use of PET/CT scanning in colorectal cancer patients. PET/CT might not be of value in patients with an unexplained rise in CEA.
AIM: This study aims to determine the role of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in changing the management plan in patients with metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) and to evaluate the role of PET/CT in patients with an unexplained rise in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 consecutive patients with CRC, who had PET/CT, were identified between 2008 and 2010. All patients had CT scans prior to the PET/CT. Data were collected from clinic letters, CT and PET CT reports and pathology results and cross-checked with the patient's notes. RESULTS:Patients were aged between 43 and 85 years [33 males, 27 females]. CEA was raised in 37 patients and normal in 23. Results of PET/CT were compared with that of CT scan and 33 out of the 60 patients (55%) had PET/CT results which were different to that of CT scan and 27 patients (45%) had similar PET/CT and CT results. PET scan appropriately altered the management in 23/60 patients (38%) and avoided unnecessary surgery in 14 patients. PET/CT had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 84%. In patients with an unexplained rise in CEA, PET/CT was positive in only one out of ten (10%) patients. CONCLUSION: PET/CT is valuable in deciding the management outcome in patients with metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer. Unnecessary surgery might be avoided by careful use of PET/CT scanning in colorectal cancerpatients. PET/CT might not be of value in patients with an unexplained rise in CEA.
Authors: T J M Ruers; B S Langenhoff; N Neeleman; G J Jager; S Strijk; Th Wobbes; F H M Corstens; W J G Oyen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shandra Bipat; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Emile F I Comans; Milan E J Pijl; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Jaap Stoker Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-08-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J V Vitola; D Delbeke; M P Sandler; M G Campbell; T A Powers; J K Wright; W C Chapman; C W Pinson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 1996-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: K Davey; A G Heriot; J Mackay; E Drummond; A Hogg; S Ngan; A D Milner; R J Hicks Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2008-05-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Brian D Nicholson; Bethany Shinkins; Indika Pathiraja; Nia W Roberts; Tim J James; Susan Mallett; Rafael Perera; John N Primrose; David Mant Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-10
Authors: Michael Gade; Magdalena Kubik; Rune V Fisker; Ole Thorlacius-Ussing; Lars J Petersen Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 3.909