Yui Kaneko1, William K Murray2, Emma Link3, Rodney J Hicks4, Cuong Duong5. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 2. Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; and. 4. Department of Cancer imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia cuong.duong@petermac.org.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Standard pretreatment staging for gastric cancer includes CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; gastroscopy; and laparoscopy. Although (18)F-PET combined with CT has proven to be a useful staging tool in many cancers, some gastric cancers are not (18)F-FDG-avid and its clinical value is still debatable. METHODS: Gastric cancer patients who underwent staging (18)F-FDG PET scans from 2002 to 2013 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center were retrospectively analyzed, and a systematic review was also conducted using PubMed between 2000 to March 2014 to investigate clinicopathologic parameters associated with (18)F-FDG avidity. A pretreatment PET scoring system was developed from predictors of (18)F-FDG avidity. RESULTS: Both the retrospective analysis of the patients and the systematic literature review showed similar significant predictors of (18)F-FDG avidity, including large tumor size, non-signet ring cell carcinoma type, and glucose transporter 1-positive expression on immunohistochemistry. A PET scoring system was developed from these clinicopathologic parameters that allowed (18)F-FDG-avid tumors to be detected with a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 71%. CONCLUSION: A pretreatment PET scoring system can assist in the selection of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma when staging (18)F-FDG PET is being considered.
UNLABELLED: Standard pretreatment staging for gastric cancer includes CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis; gastroscopy; and laparoscopy. Although (18)F-PET combined with CT has proven to be a useful staging tool in many cancers, some gastric cancers are not (18)F-FDG-avid and its clinical value is still debatable. METHODS:Gastric cancerpatients who underwent staging (18)F-FDG PET scans from 2002 to 2013 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Center were retrospectively analyzed, and a systematic review was also conducted using PubMed between 2000 to March 2014 to investigate clinicopathologic parameters associated with (18)F-FDG avidity. A pretreatment PET scoring system was developed from predictors of (18)F-FDG avidity. RESULTS: Both the retrospective analysis of the patients and the systematic literature review showed similar significant predictors of (18)F-FDG avidity, including large tumor size, non-signet ring cell carcinoma type, and glucose transporter 1-positive expression on immunohistochemistry. A PET scoring system was developed from these clinicopathologic parameters that allowed (18)F-FDG-avid tumors to be detected with a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 71%. CONCLUSION: A pretreatment PET scoring system can assist in the selection of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma when staging (18)F-FDG PET is being considered.
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Frank J Wessels; Marcel Verheij; Edwin P M Jansen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Pierre-Yves Le Roux; Cuong P Duong; Carlos S Cabalag; Bimal K Parameswaran; Jason Callahan; Rodney J Hicks Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M Martin-Richard; A Custodio; C García-Girón; C Grávalos; C Gomez; P Jimenez-Fonseca; J L Manzano; C Pericay; F Rivera; A Carrato Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 3.405