AIM: To investigate the nature and significance of unexpected positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) uptake within the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). METHODS: Patients with unexpected FDG-PET findings in the GIT were evaluated. All patients had a previous confirmed malignancy, either solid or lymphoproliferative. The radiologic reports were performed by experienced radiologists with an exclusive PET expertise. Endoscopy, i.e., esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, and histopathological evaluation of all findings was performed in all patients in accordance to the FDG-PET results. The findings from each of these modalities were compared to each other. Both clinically significant and insignificant findings were assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were endoscopically evaluated. Twenty-seven patients (37.5%) had primarily a lymphoproliferative tumor and 45 (62.5%) had solid tumors. In 50 patients (69.4%) the endoscopic examination revealed lesions in the same anatomical areas as the FDG-PET findings. Among these 50 patients, malignant and premalignant lesions i.e., adenomatous polyps were found in 16 (32%) and 9 (18%) patients, respectively. Inflammation was noted in an additional 20 patients (40%). Compared to primary solid tumors, a background of primary lymphoproliferative malignancy was more likely to reveal an additional primary malignancy (15.6% vs 33.3%, respectively, P < 0.01). EGD compared to colonoscopy, revealed altogether 11 (25.6%) new malignancies compared to 5 (17.2%), respectively, P = 0.12. No GIT clinically significant findings were overseen by the FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: Unexpected FDG uptake in the GIT is commonly encountered and may contain significant findings. Endoscopy evaluation is justified in order to detect these additional findings.
AIM: To investigate the nature and significance of unexpected positron emission tomography with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) uptake within the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). METHODS:Patients with unexpected FDG-PET findings in the GIT were evaluated. All patients had a previous confirmed malignancy, either solid or lymphoproliferative. The radiologic reports were performed by experienced radiologists with an exclusive PET expertise. Endoscopy, i.e., esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, and histopathological evaluation of all findings was performed in all patients in accordance to the FDG-PET results. The findings from each of these modalities were compared to each other. Both clinically significant and insignificant findings were assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were endoscopically evaluated. Twenty-seven patients (37.5%) had primarily a lymphoproliferative tumor and 45 (62.5%) had solid tumors. In 50 patients (69.4%) the endoscopic examination revealed lesions in the same anatomical areas as the FDG-PET findings. Among these 50 patients, malignant and premalignant lesions i.e., adenomatous polyps were found in 16 (32%) and 9 (18%) patients, respectively. Inflammation was noted in an additional 20 patients (40%). Compared to primary solid tumors, a background of primary lymphoproliferative malignancy was more likely to reveal an additional primary malignancy (15.6% vs 33.3%, respectively, P < 0.01). EGD compared to colonoscopy, revealed altogether 11 (25.6%) new malignancies compared to 5 (17.2%), respectively, P = 0.12. No GIT clinically significant findings were overseen by the FDG-PET. CONCLUSION: Unexpected FDG uptake in the GIT is commonly encountered and may contain significant findings. Endoscopy evaluation is justified in order to detect these additional findings.
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: Henri J L M Timmers; Clara C Chen; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Millie Whatley; Alexander Ling; Graeme Eisenhofer; Kathryn S King; Jyotsna U Rao; Robert A Wesley; Karen T Adams; Karel Pacak Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 13.506