AIM: To evaluated the value of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and extrahepatic metastases. METHODS: A total of 138 patients with HCC who had both conventional imaging modalities and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan done between November 2006 and March 2011 were enrolled. Diagnostic value of each imaging modality for detection of extrahepatic metastases was evaluated. Clinical factors and tumor characteristics including PET imaging were analyzed as indicative factors for metastases by univariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: The accuracy of chest CT was significantly superior compared with the accuracy of PET imaging for detecting lung metastases. The detection rate of metastatic pulmonary nodule ≥ 1 cm was 12/13 (92.3%), when < 1 cm was 2/10 (20%) in PET imaging. The accuracy of PET imaging was significantly superior compared with the accuracy of bone scan for detecting bone metastases. In multivariate analysis, increased tumor size (≥ 5 cm) (P = 0.042) and increased average standardized uptake value (SUV) uptake (P = 0.028) were predictive factors for extrahepatic metastases. Isometabolic HCC in PET imaging was inversely correlated in multivariate analysis (P = 0.035). According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, the optimal cutoff of average SUV to predict extrahepatic metastases was 3.4. CONCLUSION: ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan is invaluable for detection of lung metastases larger than 1 cm and bone metastases. Primary HCC having larger than 5 cm and increased average SUV uptake more than 3.4 should be considered for extrahepatic metastases.
AIM: To evaluated the value of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and extrahepatic metastases. METHODS: A total of 138 patients with HCC who had both conventional imaging modalities and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan done between November 2006 and March 2011 were enrolled. Diagnostic value of each imaging modality for detection of extrahepatic metastases was evaluated. Clinical factors and tumor characteristics including PET imaging were analyzed as indicative factors for metastases by univariate and multivariate methods. RESULTS: The accuracy of chest CT was significantly superior compared with the accuracy of PET imaging for detecting lung metastases. The detection rate of metastatic pulmonary nodule ≥ 1 cm was 12/13 (92.3%), when < 1 cm was 2/10 (20%) in PET imaging. The accuracy of PET imaging was significantly superior compared with the accuracy of bone scan for detecting bone metastases. In multivariate analysis, increased tumor size (≥ 5 cm) (P = 0.042) and increased average standardized uptake value (SUV) uptake (P = 0.028) were predictive factors for extrahepatic metastases. Isometabolic HCC in PET imaging was inversely correlated in multivariate analysis (P = 0.035). According to the receiver operating characteristic curve, the optimal cutoff of average SUV to predict extrahepatic metastases was 3.4. CONCLUSION: ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scan is invaluable for detection of lung metastases larger than 1 cm and bone metastases. Primary HCC having larger than 5 cm and increased average SUV uptake more than 3.4 should be considered for extrahepatic metastases.
Authors: Sung Hoon Yang; Kyung-Suk Suh; Hae Won Lee; Eung-Ho Cho; Jai Young Cho; Yong Beom Cho; Nam-Joon Yi; Kuhn Uk Lee Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.799
Authors: M A Khan; C S Combs; E M Brunt; V J Lowe; M K Wolverson; H Solomon; B T Collins; A M Di Bisceglie Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Ki Tae Yoon; Ja Kyung Kim; Do Young Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Jong Doo Lee; Mijin Yun; Sun Young Rha; Chae Yoon Chon; Kwang-Hyub Han Journal: Oncology Date: 2007-12-13 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: T F Greten; N P Malek; S Schmidt; J Arends; P Bartenstein; W Bechstein; T Bernatik; M Bitzer; A Chavan; M Dollinger; D Domagk; O Drognitz; M Düx; S Farkas; G Folprecht; P Galle; M Geißler; G Gerken; D Habermehl; T Helmberger; K Herfarth; R T Hoffmann; M Holtmann; P Huppert; T Jakobs; M Keller; J Klempnauer; F Kolligs; J Körber; H Lang; F Lehner; F Lordick; A Lubienski; M P Manns; A Mahnken; M Möhler; C Mönch; P Neuhaus; C Niederau; M Ocker; G Otto; P Pereira; G Pott; J Riemer; K Ringe; U Ritterbusch; E Rummeny; P Schirmacher; H J Schlitt; K Schlottmann; V Schmitz; A Schuler; H Schulze-Bergkamen; D von Schweinitz; D Seehofer; H Sitter; C P Straßburg; C Stroszczynski; D Strobel; A Tannapfel; J Trojan; I van Thiel; A Vogel; F Wacker; H Wedemeyer; H Wege; A Weinmann; C Wittekind; B Wörmann; C J Zech Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 2.000