PURPOSES: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common sarcoma of the intestinal tract. The risk category is usually determined by tumor size and mitotic count, but accurate preoperative diagnosis of GIST is very difficult. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of positron emission tomography (PET)-CT for predicting the malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. METHODS: Ten patients with GIST who underwent a preoperative PET-CT examination were divided into two groups by risk category, and various factors were compared between the two groups. The relationships between the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and GIST parameters were examined. RESULTS: Patients were classified into two groups by their risk category: (low/intermediate-risk or high-risk). The SUVmax was significantly higher in the high-risk group (11.0 ± 3.04) than in the low/intermediate-risk group (2.1 ± 1.5). The Ki67 labeling index was also significantly higher in the high-risk group (8.63 ± 6.2) than in the low/intermediate-risk group (1.75 ± 0.52). There was a significant correlation between the Ki67 labeling index and the SUVmax (p = 0.028) and between the mitotic index and the SUVmax (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: PET-CT can predict malignant potential. Cases with a SUVmax of over 5 may have malignant potential.
PURPOSES: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common sarcoma of the intestinal tract. The risk category is usually determined by tumor size and mitotic count, but accurate preoperative diagnosis of GIST is very difficult. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of positron emission tomography (PET)-CT for predicting the malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. METHODS: Ten patients with GIST who underwent a preoperative PET-CT examination were divided into two groups by risk category, and various factors were compared between the two groups. The relationships between the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and GIST parameters were examined. RESULTS:Patients were classified into two groups by their risk category: (low/intermediate-risk or high-risk). The SUVmax was significantly higher in the high-risk group (11.0 ± 3.04) than in the low/intermediate-risk group (2.1 ± 1.5). The Ki67 labeling index was also significantly higher in the high-risk group (8.63 ± 6.2) than in the low/intermediate-risk group (1.75 ± 0.52). There was a significant correlation between the Ki67 labeling index and the SUVmax (p = 0.028) and between the mitotic index and the SUVmax (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: PET-CT can predict malignant potential. Cases with a SUVmax of over 5 may have malignant potential.
Authors: Ronald P Dematteo; Jason S Gold; Lisa Saran; Mithat Gönen; Kui Hin Liau; Robert G Maki; Samuel Singer; Peter Besmer; Murray F Brennan; Cristina R Antonescu Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Charles D Blanke; Cathryn Rankin; George D Demetri; Christopher W Ryan; Margaret von Mehren; Robert S Benjamin; A Kevin Raymond; Vivien H C Bramwell; Laurence H Baker; Robert G Maki; Michael Tanaka; J Randolph Hecht; Michael C Heinrich; Christopher D M Fletcher; John J Crowley; Ernest C Borden Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Charles D Blanke; George D Demetri; Margaret von Mehren; Michael C Heinrich; Burton Eisenberg; Jonathan A Fletcher; Christopher L Corless; Christopher D M Fletcher; Peter J Roberts; Daniela Heinz; Elisabeth Wehre; Zariana Nikolova; Heikki Joensuu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N A C S Wong; R Young; R D G Malcomson; A G Nayar; L A Jamieson; V E Save; F A Carey; D H Brewster; C Han; A Al-Nafussi Journal: Histopathology Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Christopher D M Fletcher; Jules J Berman; Christopher Corless; Fred Gorstein; Jerzy Lasota; B Jack Longley; Markku Miettinen; Timothy J O'Leary; Helen Remotti; Brian P Rubin; Barry Shmookler; Leslie H Sobin; Sharon W Weiss Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.466
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: Guy J C Burkill; Mohammed Badran; Omar Al-Muderis; J Meirion Thomas; Ian R Judson; Cyril Fisher; Eleanor C Moskovic Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: George D Demetri; Margaret von Mehren; Charles D Blanke; Annick D Van den Abbeele; Burton Eisenberg; Peter J Roberts; Michael C Heinrich; David A Tuveson; Samuel Singer; Milos Janicek; Jonathan A Fletcher; Stuart G Silverman; Sandra L Silberman; Renaud Capdeville; Beate Kiese; Bin Peng; Sasa Dimitrijevic; Brian J Druker; Christopher Corless; Christopher D M Fletcher; Heikki Joensuu Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hyun Ok Kim; Ji Eun Kim; Kyung Soo Bae; Bong Hoi Choi; Chi Young Jeong; Jong Sil Lee Journal: Jpn J Radiol Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Hamda Almaazmi; Miloslawa Stem; Brian D Lo; James P Taylor; Sandy H Fang; Bashar Safar; Jonathan E Efron; Chady Atallah Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 3.452