BACKGROUND: Current pre-operative staging methods for gallbladder cancer (GBC) are suboptimal in detecting metastatic disease. Positron emission tomography (PET) may have a role but data are lacking. METHODS: Patients with GBC and PET assessed by a hepatobiliary surgeon in clinic between January 2001 and June 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonace imaging (MRI) were correlated with PET scans and analysed for evidence of metastatic or locally unresectable disease. Medical records were reviewed to determine if PET scanning was helpful by preventing non-therapeutic surgery or enabling resection in patients initially deemed unresectable. RESULTS: There were 100 patients including 63 incidental GBC. Thirty-eight patients did not proceed to surgery, 35 were resected and 27 patients were explored but had unresectable disease. PET was positive for metastatic disease in 39 patients (sensitivity 56%, specificity 94%). Five patients definitively benefitted from PET: in 3 patients PET found disease not seen on CT, and 2 patients with suspicious CT findings had negative PET and successful resections. In a further 12 patients PET confirmed equivocal CT findings. Three patients had additional invasive procedures performed owing to PET avidity in other sites. Utility of PET was higher in patients with suspicious nodal disease on CT [odds ratio (OR) 7.1 versus no nodal disease, P = 0.0004], and in patients without a prior cholecystectomy (OR 3.1 versus post-cholecystectomy, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Addition of PET to conventional cross-sectional imaging has a modest impact on management pre-operatively particularly in patients without a prior cholecystectomy and to confirm suspicious nodal disease on CT.
BACKGROUND: Current pre-operative staging methods for gallbladder cancer (GBC) are suboptimal in detecting metastatic disease. Positron emission tomography (PET) may have a role but data are lacking. METHODS:Patients with GBC and PET assessed by a hepatobiliary surgeon in clinic between January 2001 and June 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonace imaging (MRI) were correlated with PET scans and analysed for evidence of metastatic or locally unresectable disease. Medical records were reviewed to determine if PET scanning was helpful by preventing non-therapeutic surgery or enabling resection in patients initially deemed unresectable. RESULTS: There were 100 patients including 63 incidental GBC. Thirty-eight patients did not proceed to surgery, 35 were resected and 27 patients were explored but had unresectable disease. PET was positive for metastatic disease in 39 patients (sensitivity 56%, specificity 94%). Five patients definitively benefitted from PET: in 3 patients PET found disease not seen on CT, and 2 patients with suspicious CT findings had negative PET and successful resections. In a further 12 patients PET confirmed equivocal CT findings. Three patients had additional invasive procedures performed owing to PET avidity in other sites. Utility of PET was higher in patients with suspicious nodal disease on CT [odds ratio (OR) 7.1 versus no nodal disease, P = 0.0004], and in patients without a prior cholecystectomy (OR 3.1 versus post-cholecystectomy, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Addition of PET to conventional cross-sectional imaging has a modest impact on management pre-operatively particularly in patients without a prior cholecystectomy and to confirm suspicious nodal disease on CT.
Authors: Tak Geun Oh; Moon Jae Chung; Seungmin Bang; Seung Woo Park; Jae Bok Chung; Si Young Song; Gi Hong Choi; Kyung Sik Kim; Woo Jung Lee; Jeong Youp Park Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Xabier de Aretxabala; Ivan Roa; Luis Burgos; Hector Losada; Juan Carlos Roa; Javier Mora; Juan Hepp; Jorge Leon; F Maluenda Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Manuel Gómez-Río; José Manuel Llamas-Elvira; Simeón Ortega-Lozano; Jose Antonio Ferrón-Orihuela; Jose Manuel Ramia-Angel; Alfonso Mansilla-Roselló; María Dolores Martínez-del-Valle; Carlos Ramos-Font Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Michael D'Angelica; Kimberly Moore Dalal; Ronald P DeMatteo; Yuman Fong; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Seza A Gulec; Mark B Faries; Chris C Lee; Daniel Kirgan; C Glass; Donald L Morton; Richard Essner Journal: Clin Nucl Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.794
Authors: Christopher D Anderson; Michael H Rice; C Wright Pinson; William C Chapman; Ravi S Chari; Dominique Delbeke Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: T Peter Kingham; Victoria G Aveson; Alice C Wei; Jason A Castellanos; Peter J Allen; Daniel P Nussbaum; Yinin Hu; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 1.909