PURPOSE: Pre- and post-treatment staging of anal cancer are often inaccurate. The role of positron emission tomograpy-computed tomography (PET-CT) in anal cancer is yet to be defined. The aim of the study was to compare PET-CT with CT scan, sentinel node biopsy results of inguinal lymph nodes, and anal biopsy results in staging and in follow-up of anal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-three consecutive patients diagnosed with anal cancer underwent PET-CT. Results were compared with computed tomography (CT), performed in 40 patients, and with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) (41 patients) at pretreatment workup. Early follow-up consisted of a digital rectal examination, an anoscopy, a PET-CT scan, and anal biopsies performed at 1 and 3 months after the end of treatment. Data sets were then compared. RESULTS: At pretreatment assessment, anal cancer was identified by PET-CT in 47 patients (88.7%) and by CT in 30 patients (75%). The detection rates rose to 97.9% with PET-CT and to 82.9% with CT (P=.042) when the 5 patients who had undergone surgery prior to this assessment and whose margins were positive at histological examination were censored. Perirectal and/or pelvic nodes were considered metastatic by PET-CT in 14 of 53 patients (26.4%) and by CT in 7 of 40 patients (17.5%). SNB was superior to both PET-CT and CT in detecting inguinal lymph nodes. PET-CT upstaged 37.5% of patients and downstaged 25% of patients. Radiation fields were changed in 12.6% of patients. PET-CT at 3 months was more accurate than PET-CT at 1 month in evaluating outcomes after chemoradiation therapy treatment: sensitivity was 100% vs 66.6%, and specificity was 97.4% vs 92.5%, respectively. Median follow-up was 20.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, PET-CT detected the primary tumor more often than CT. Staging of perirectal/pelvic or inguinal lymph nodes was better with PET-CT. SNB was more accurate in staging inguinal lymph nodes.
PURPOSE: Pre- and post-treatment staging of anal cancer are often inaccurate. The role of positron emission tomograpy-computed tomography (PET-CT) in anal cancer is yet to be defined. The aim of the study was to compare PET-CT with CT scan, sentinel node biopsy results of inguinal lymph nodes, and anal biopsy results in staging and in follow-up of anal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-three consecutive patients diagnosed with anal cancer underwent PET-CT. Results were compared with computed tomography (CT), performed in 40 patients, and with sentinel node biopsy (SNB) (41 patients) at pretreatment workup. Early follow-up consisted of a digital rectal examination, an anoscopy, a PET-CT scan, and anal biopsies performed at 1 and 3 months after the end of treatment. Data sets were then compared. RESULTS: At pretreatment assessment, anal cancer was identified by PET-CT in 47 patients (88.7%) and by CT in 30 patients (75%). The detection rates rose to 97.9% with PET-CT and to 82.9% with CT (P=.042) when the 5 patients who had undergone surgery prior to this assessment and whose margins were positive at histological examination were censored. Perirectal and/or pelvic nodes were considered metastatic by PET-CT in 14 of 53 patients (26.4%) and by CT in 7 of 40 patients (17.5%). SNB was superior to both PET-CT and CT in detecting inguinal lymph nodes. PET-CT upstaged 37.5% of patients and downstaged 25% of patients. Radiation fields were changed in 12.6% of patients. PET-CT at 3 months was more accurate than PET-CT at 1 month in evaluating outcomes after chemoradiation therapy treatment: sensitivity was 100% vs 66.6%, and specificity was 97.4% vs 92.5%, respectively. Median follow-up was 20.3 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this series, PET-CT detected the primary tumor more often than CT. Staging of perirectal/pelvic or inguinal lymph nodes was better with PET-CT. SNB was more accurate in staging inguinal lymph nodes.
Authors: Theodore S Hong; Jennifer L Pretz; Joseph M Herman; May Abdel-Wahab; Nilofer Azad; A William Blackstock; Prajnan Das; Karyn A Goodman; Salma K Jabbour; William E Jones; Andre A Konski; Albert C Koong; Miguel Rodriguez-Bigas; William Small; Charles R Thomas; Jennifer Zook; W Warren Suh Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2014-01
Authors: Shanna A Matalon; Harvey J Mamon; Charles S Fuchs; Leona A Doyle; Sree Harsha Tirumani; Nikhil H Ramaiya; Michael H Rosenthal Journal: Radiographics Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Robert Siegel; Ricardo Niklas Werner; Stephan Koswig; Matthew Gaskins; Claus Rödel; Felix Aigner Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 8.251
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: D M Mistrangelo; M Bellò; P Cassoni; E Milanesi; P Racca; F Munoz; G Fora; N Rondi; N Gilbo; R Senetta; U Ricardi; M Morino Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Clelia Di Carlo; Maika di Benedetto; Lisa Vicenzi; Sara Costantini; Francesca Cucciarelli; Francesco Fenu; Eleonora Arena; Cristina Mariucci; Maria Montisci; Valeria Panni; Fabiola Patani; Marco Valenti; Andrea Palucci; Luca Burroni; Giovanna Mantello Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.244