AIM: To explore the diagnostic value of the cross-modality fusion images provided by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) for pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Data from 70 patients with pancreatic lesions who underwent CECT and PET/CT examinations at our hospital from August 2010 to October 2012 were analyzed. PET/CECT for the cross-modality image fusion was obtained using TureD software. The diagnostic efficiencies of PET/CT, CECT and PET/CECT were calculated and compared with each other using a χ(2) test. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Of the total 70 patients, 50 had PC and 20 had benign lesions. The differences in the sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy between CECT and PET/CECT in detecting PC were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). In 15 of the 31 patients with PC who underwent a surgical operation, peripancreatic vessel invasion was verified. The differences in the sensitivity, positive predictive value, NPV, and accuracy of CECT vs PET/CT and PET/CECT vs PET/CT in diagnosing peripancreatic vessel invasion were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). In 19 of the 31 patients with PC who underwent a surgical operation, regional lymph node metastasis was verified by postsurgical histology. There was no statistically significant difference among the three methods in detecting regional lymph node metastasis (P > 0.05 for each). In 17 of the 50 patients with PC confirmed by histology or clinical follow-up, distant metastasis was confirmed. The differences in the sensitivity and NPV between CECT and PET/CECT in detecting distant metastasis were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). CONCLUSION: Cross-modality image fusion of PET/CT and CECT is a convenient and effective method that can be used to diagnose and stage PC, compensating for the defects of PET/CT and CECT when they are conducted individually.
AIM: To explore the diagnostic value of the cross-modality fusion images provided by positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) for pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: Data from 70 patients with pancreatic lesions who underwent CECT and PET/CT examinations at our hospital from August 2010 to October 2012 were analyzed. PET/CECT for the cross-modality image fusion was obtained using TureD software. The diagnostic efficiencies of PET/CT, CECT and PET/CECT were calculated and compared with each other using a χ(2) test. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: Of the total 70 patients, 50 had PC and 20 had benign lesions. The differences in the sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy between CECT and PET/CECT in detecting PC were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). In 15 of the 31 patients with PC who underwent a surgical operation, peripancreatic vessel invasion was verified. The differences in the sensitivity, positive predictive value, NPV, and accuracy of CECT vs PET/CT and PET/CECT vs PET/CT in diagnosing peripancreatic vessel invasion were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). In 19 of the 31 patients with PC who underwent a surgical operation, regional lymph node metastasis was verified by postsurgical histology. There was no statistically significant difference among the three methods in detecting regional lymph node metastasis (P > 0.05 for each). In 17 of the 50 patients with PC confirmed by histology or clinical follow-up, distant metastasis was confirmed. The differences in the sensitivity and NPV between CECT and PET/CECT in detecting distant metastasis were statistically significant (P < 0.05 for each). CONCLUSION: Cross-modality image fusion of PET/CT and CECT is a convenient and effective method that can be used to diagnose and stage PC, compensating for the defects of PET/CT and CECT when they are conducted individually.
Authors: Nicolas C Buchs; Leo Bühler; Pascal Bucher; Jean-Pierre Willi; Jean-Louis Frossard; Arnaud D Roth; Pietro Addeo; Antoine Rosset; Sylvain Terraz; Christoph D Becker; Osman Ratib; Philippe Morel Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.029
Authors: Osamu F Kaneko; Deborah M Lee; Jimmie Wong; Barbara M Kadell; Howard A Reber; David S K Lu; Steven S Raman Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Jeong Won Lee; Chang Moo Kang; Hye Jin Choi; Woo Jung Lee; Si Young Song; Jae-Hoon Lee; Jong Doo Lee Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2014-04-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Klaus Strobel; Stefan Heinrich; Ujwal Bhure; Jan Soyka; Patrick Veit-Haibach; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Thomas F Hany Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-08-14 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lawrence Mj Best; Vishal Rawji; Stephen P Pereira; Brian R Davidson; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-17
Authors: Piotr Hogendorf; Aleksander Skulimowski; Adam Durczyński; Anna Kumor; Grażyna Poznańska; Aleksandra Oleśna; Joanna Rut; Janusz Strzelczyk Journal: Dis Markers Date: 2017-03-05 Impact factor: 3.434
Authors: Yongzhu Pu; Chun Wang; Sheng Zhao; Ran Xie; Lei Zhao; Kun Li; Conghui Yang; Rui Zhang; Yadong Tian; Lixian Tan; Jindan Li; Shujuan Li; Long Chen; Hua Sun Journal: Transl Cancer Res Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 1.241