OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of FDG-avid and non-FDG-avid lesions detected at colonoscopy in patients presenting with incidental focal colonic FDG uptake at PET/CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 9073 patients who underwent PET/CT over a 4-year period, 82 patients without a history of colonic disease had focal colonic FDG uptake and underwent colonoscopy. In consensus, a radiologist and a nuclear physician read images from these PET/CT examinations. They recorded the location of focal FDG uptake in the colon and associated CT abnormalities and measured maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic volume (MV). Readings were performed twice--first without and second with knowledge of lesion location at colonoscopy. The final diagnosis was based on colonoscopic findings and histopathologic results categorized into benign, premalignant, or malignant. RESULTS: One hundred seven foci of colonic FDG uptake at PET/CT and 150 lesions at colonoscopy were detected. Among 107 foci of FDG uptake, 65 (61%) corresponded to a lesion at colonoscopy (true-positive findings), and 42 (39%) did not (false-positive findings). Among 150 lesions found at colonoscopy, 85 (57%) were not FDG avid (false-negative findings). The MV of true-positive findings was lower than that of false-positive findings (4.0 ± 0.4 cm(3) vs 6.2 ± 0.7 cm(3); p = 0.006), but SUVmax did not differ (7.4 ± 0.5 vs 7.7 ± 0.5; p = 0.649). Considering the histopathologic categories of the lesions and the false-positive findings, there was no difference in SUVmax (p = 0.103), but MV was lower in premalignant lesions than in false-positive findings (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Focal colonic FDG uptake may indicate the presence of a benign, pre-malignant, or malignant lesion. Subsequent colonoscopy should not be restricted to the colonic site of FDG uptake.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of FDG-avid and non-FDG-avid lesions detected at colonoscopy in patients presenting with incidental focal colonic FDG uptake at PET/CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 9073 patients who underwent PET/CT over a 4-year period, 82 patients without a history of colonic disease had focal colonic FDG uptake and underwent colonoscopy. In consensus, a radiologist and a nuclear physician read images from these PET/CT examinations. They recorded the location of focal FDG uptake in the colon and associated CT abnormalities and measured maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic volume (MV). Readings were performed twice--first without and second with knowledge of lesion location at colonoscopy. The final diagnosis was based on colonoscopic findings and histopathologic results categorized into benign, premalignant, or malignant. RESULTS: One hundred seven foci of colonic FDG uptake at PET/CT and 150 lesions at colonoscopy were detected. Among 107 foci of FDG uptake, 65 (61%) corresponded to a lesion at colonoscopy (true-positive findings), and 42 (39%) did not (false-positive findings). Among 150 lesions found at colonoscopy, 85 (57%) were not FDG avid (false-negative findings). The MV of true-positive findings was lower than that of false-positive findings (4.0 ± 0.4 cm(3) vs 6.2 ± 0.7 cm(3); p = 0.006), but SUVmax did not differ (7.4 ± 0.5 vs 7.7 ± 0.5; p = 0.649). Considering the histopathologic categories of the lesions and the false-positive findings, there was no difference in SUVmax (p = 0.103), but MV was lower in premalignant lesions than in false-positive findings (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION:Focal colonic FDG uptake may indicate the presence of a benign, pre-malignant, or malignant lesion. Subsequent colonoscopy should not be restricted to the colonic site of FDG uptake.
Authors: Julian Kirchner; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt; Firas Kour; Lino M Sawicki; Ole Martin; Johannes Bode; Stephan Vom Dahl; Verena Keitel; Dieter Häussinger; Christina Antke; Christian Buchbender; Gerald Antoch; Philipp Heusch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Wolfgang Luboldt; Baerbel Wiedemann; Sebastian Fischer; Boris Bodelle; Hans Joachim Luboldt; Frank Grünwald; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 2.175