F L Rojas Llimpe1, F Di Fabio1, G Ercolani2, E Giampalma3, A Cappelli3, C Serra4, P Castellucci5, A D'Errico6, R Golfieri3, A D Pinna2, C Pinto1. 1. Medical Oncology Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna 40138, Italy. 2. Liver Surgery Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna 40138, Italy. 3. Radiology Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna 40138, Italy. 4. Internal Medicine Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna 40138, Italy. 5. Nuclear Medicine Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna 40138, Italy. 6. Pathology Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna 40138, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the PROMETEO-01 Study was to define the diagnostic accuracy of imaging techniques in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) patients. METHODS: Patients referred to Bologna S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital performed a computed-tomography scan (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), 18F-FDG-PET/CTscan (PET/CT) and liver contrast-enhanced-ultrasound (CEUS); CEUS was also performed intraoperatively (i-CEUS). Every pathological lesion was compared with imaging data. RESULTS: From December 2007 to August 2010, 84 patients were enrolled. A total of 51 (60.71%) resected patients were eligible for analysis. In the lesion-by-lesion analysis 175 resected lesions were evaluated: 67(38.3%) belonged to upfront resected patients (group-A) and 108 (61.7%) to chemotherapy-pretreated patients (group-B). In all patients the sensitivity of MR proved better than CT (91% vs 82%; P=0.002), CEUS (91 vs 81%; P=0.008) and PET/CT (91% vs 60%; P=0.000), whereas PET/CT showed the lowest sensitivity. In group-A the sensitivity of i-CEUS, MR, CT, CEUS and PET/CT was 98%, 94%, 91%, 84% and 78%, respectively. In group-B the i-CEUS proved equivalent in sensitivity to MR (95% and 90%, respectively, P=0.227) and both were significantly more sensitive than other procedures. The CT sensitivity in group-B was lower than in group-A (77% vs 91%, P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: A thoraco-abdominal CT provides an adequate baseline evaluation and guides judgment as to the resectability of CRCLM patients. In the subset of candidates for induction chemotherapy to increase the chance of liver resection, the most rational approach is to add MR for the staging and restaging of CRCLM.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the PROMETEO-01 Study was to define the diagnostic accuracy of imaging techniques in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM) patients. METHODS:Patients referred to Bologna S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital performed a computed-tomography scan (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), 18F-FDG-PET/CTscan (PET/CT) and liver contrast-enhanced-ultrasound (CEUS); CEUS was also performed intraoperatively (i-CEUS). Every pathological lesion was compared with imaging data. RESULTS: From December 2007 to August 2010, 84 patients were enrolled. A total of 51 (60.71%) resected patients were eligible for analysis. In the lesion-by-lesion analysis 175 resected lesions were evaluated: 67(38.3%) belonged to upfront resected patients (group-A) and 108 (61.7%) to chemotherapy-pretreated patients (group-B). In all patients the sensitivity of MR proved better than CT (91% vs 82%; P=0.002), CEUS (91 vs 81%; P=0.008) and PET/CT (91% vs 60%; P=0.000), whereas PET/CT showed the lowest sensitivity. In group-A the sensitivity of i-CEUS, MR, CT, CEUS and PET/CT was 98%, 94%, 91%, 84% and 78%, respectively. In group-B the i-CEUS proved equivalent in sensitivity to MR (95% and 90%, respectively, P=0.227) and both were significantly more sensitive than other procedures. The CT sensitivity in group-B was lower than in group-A (77% vs 91%, P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: A thoraco-abdominal CT provides an adequate baseline evaluation and guides judgment as to the resectability of CRCLM patients. In the subset of candidates for induction chemotherapy to increase the chance of liver resection, the most rational approach is to add MR for the staging and restaging of CRCLM.
Authors: Halfdan Sorbye; Murielle Mauer; Thomas Gruenberger; Bengt Glimelius; Graeme J Poston; Peter M Schlag; Philippe Rougier; Wolf O Bechstein; John N Primrose; Euan T Walpole; Meg Finch-Jones; Daniel Jaeck; Darius Mirza; Rowan W Parks; Laurence Collette; Eric Van Cutsem; Werner Scheithauer; Manfred P Lutz; Bernard Nordlinger Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Douglas Quan; Steven Gallinger; Cindy Nhan; Rebecca A Auer; James J Biagi; Glenn G Fletcher; Calvin H L Law; Carol-Anne E Moulton; Leyo Ruo; Alice C Wei; Robin S McLeod Journal: Surgery Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Pier Paolo Mainenti; Marcello Mancini; Ciro Mainolfi; Luigi Camera; Simone Maurea; Antonietta Manchia; Michela Tanga; Francesco Persico; Pietro Addeo; Dario D'Antonio; Antonio Speranza; Luigi Bucci; Giovanni Persico; Leonardo Pace; Marco Salvatore Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2009-06-27
Authors: Hari Nathan; John F Bridges; David P Cosgrove; Luis A Diaz; Daniel A Laheru; Joseph M Herman; Richard D Schulick; Barish H Edil; Christopher L Wolfgang; Michael A Choti; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-08-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Vincent W T Lam; Calista Spiro; Jerome M Laurence; Emma Johnston; Michael J Hollands; Henry C C Pleass; Arthur J Richardson Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: E J A Morris; D Forman; J D Thomas; P Quirke; E F Taylor; L Fairley; B Cottier; G Poston Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Pier Paolo Mainenti; Federica Romano; Laura Pizzuti; Sabrina Segreto; Giovanni Storto; Lorenzo Mannelli; Massimo Imbriaco; Luigi Camera; Simone Maurea Journal: World J Radiol Date: 2015-07-28
Authors: C Brendle; N F Schwenzer; H Rempp; H Schmidt; C Pfannenberg; C la Fougère; K Nikolaou; C Schraml Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 9.236