Michael Jones1, George Hruby2, Michael Solomon3, Natalie Rutherford4, Jarad Martin5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia. mpjones85@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia. 3. Department of Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, Australia. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Waratah, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the role of FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (CT) with conventional imaging in the detection of primary and nodal disease in anal cancer, and to assess the impact of PET or PET/CT on the management of anal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Eligible studies included those comparing PET or PET/CT with conventional imaging in the staging of histologically confirmed anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), or studies that performed PET or PET/CT imaging to assess response following treatment. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. For the detection of primary disease, CT and PET had a sensitivity of 60 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 45.5-75.2) and 99 % (95 % CI 96-100), respectively. Compared with conventional imaging, PET upstaged 15 % (95 % CI 10-21) and downstaged 15 % (95 % CI 10-20) of nodal disease. This led to a change in nodal staging in 28 % of patients (95 % CI 18-38). When only studies performing contemporary PET/CT were considered, the rate of nodal upstaging was 21 % (95 % CI 13-30) and the TNM stage was altered in 41 % of patients. Following chemoradiotherapy, 78 % (95 % CI 65-88) of patients had a complete response on PET. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional imaging, PET or PET/CT alters the nodal status in a sufficient number of cases to justify its routine use in the staging of patients with anal SCC.
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the role of FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) or PET/computed tomography (CT) with conventional imaging in the detection of primary and nodal disease in anal cancer, and to assess the impact of PET or PET/CT on the management of anal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Eligible studies included those comparing PET or PET/CT with conventional imaging in the staging of histologically confirmed anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), or studies that performed PET or PET/CT imaging to assess response following treatment. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. For the detection of primary disease, CT and PET had a sensitivity of 60 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 45.5-75.2) and 99 % (95 % CI 96-100), respectively. Compared with conventional imaging, PET upstaged 15 % (95 % CI 10-21) and downstaged 15 % (95 % CI 10-20) of nodal disease. This led to a change in nodal staging in 28 % of patients (95 % CI 18-38). When only studies performing contemporary PET/CT were considered, the rate of nodal upstaging was 21 % (95 % CI 13-30) and the TNM stage was altered in 41 % of patients. Following chemoradiotherapy, 78 % (95 % CI 65-88) of patients had a complete response on PET. CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional imaging, PET or PET/CT alters the nodal status in a sufficient number of cases to justify its routine use in the staging of patients with anal SCC.
Authors: Michael P Jones; Susan Carroll; Jarad Martin; Richard Hillman; Andrew Grulich; Dianne O'Connell; Christopher Young; Isobel Mary Poynten Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-10-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Jacob S Parzen; Aleksander Vayntraub; Bryan Squires; Muayad F Almahariq; Andrew B Thompson; John M Robertson; Peyman Kabolizadeh; Thomas J Quinn Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2021-04
Authors: Robert Siegel; Ricardo Niklas Werner; Stephan Koswig; Matthew Gaskins; Claus Rödel; Felix Aigner Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 8.251
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Rohit Kochhar; Andrew G Renehan; Damian Mullan; Bipasha Chakrabarty; Mark P Saunders; Bernadette M Carrington Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Clelia Di Carlo; Maika di Benedetto; Lisa Vicenzi; Sara Costantini; Francesca Cucciarelli; Francesco Fenu; Eleonora Arena; Cristina Mariucci; Maria Montisci; Valeria Panni; Fabiola Patani; Marco Valenti; Andrea Palucci; Luca Burroni; Giovanna Mantello Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.244