BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with negative margins is the only curative approach for pancreatic cancer. A paucity of data exists in using PET/CT scan as staging workup in resectable pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study is to determine if PET/CT prevents futile laparotomy by detecting occult metastatic disease in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients were included using institutional PET/CT data base incorporating National Oncologic PET Registry with diagnosis of resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer from 2005 to 2012. Clinical, radiographic, and pathologic characteristics were evaluated. The impact of PET/CT on patient management was estimated by calculating the percentage of patients whose treatment plan was altered secondary to PET/CT. RESULTS: We identified 285 patients with early stage pancreatic cancer who received PET/CT as part of initial staging workup. Upon initial workup (CT + EUS), 62% of patients were considered resectable, and 38% were borderline resectable. Addition of PET/CT scan changed the management in 10.9% (n = 31) of the patients (95% CI, 8%-15%). Metastatic lesions were confirmed with biopsy in 19 patients (61%). The proportion of change in treatment plan was significantly higher in patients who were initially considered to have borderline resectable compared with resectable malignancy (17% vs 7%, P = 0.019). In 199 patients who underwent surgery, 18.1% (n = 36) were found to have metastatic disease intraoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT helped improve detection of occult metastases, ultimately sparing these patients a potentially unnecessary surgery. The role of PET/CT scan should be validated in prospective study.
BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with negative margins is the only curative approach for pancreatic cancer. A paucity of data exists in using PET/CT scan as staging workup in resectable pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study is to determine if PET/CT prevents futile laparotomy by detecting occult metastatic disease in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS:Patients were included using institutional PET/CT data base incorporating National Oncologic PET Registry with diagnosis of resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer from 2005 to 2012. Clinical, radiographic, and pathologic characteristics were evaluated. The impact of PET/CT on patient management was estimated by calculating the percentage of patients whose treatment plan was altered secondary to PET/CT. RESULTS: We identified 285 patients with early stage pancreatic cancer who received PET/CT as part of initial staging workup. Upon initial workup (CT + EUS), 62% of patients were considered resectable, and 38% were borderline resectable. Addition of PET/CT scan changed the management in 10.9% (n = 31) of the patients (95% CI, 8%-15%). Metastatic lesions were confirmed with biopsy in 19 patients (61%). The proportion of change in treatment plan was significantly higher in patients who were initially considered to have borderline resectable compared with resectable malignancy (17% vs 7%, P = 0.019). In 199 patients who underwent surgery, 18.1% (n = 36) were found to have metastatic disease intraoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT helped improve detection of occult metastases, ultimately sparing these patients a potentially unnecessary surgery. The role of PET/CT scan should be validated in prospective study.
Authors: C G Diederichs; L Staib; J Vogel; B Glasbrenner; G Glatting; H J Brambs; H G Beger; S N Reske Journal: Pancreas Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Stefan Heinrich; Gerhard W Goerres; Markus Schäfer; Markus Sagmeister; Peter Bauerfeind; Bernhard C Pestalozzi; Thomas F Hany; Gustav K von Schulthess; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Y Fong; P F Saldinger; T Akhurst; H Macapinlac; H Yeung; R D Finn; A Cohen; N Kemeny; L H Blumgart; S M Larson Journal: Am J Surg Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: D Lytras; S Connor; L Bosonnet; R Jayan; J Evans; M Hughes; C J Garvey; P Ghaneh; R Sutton; S Vinjamuri; J P Neoptolemos Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2005-04-14 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: T J M Ruers; B S Langenhoff; N Neeleman; G J Jager; S Strijk; Th Wobbes; F H M Corstens; W J G Oyen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arnaud Pommier; Naishitha Anaparthy; Nicoletta Memos; Z Larkin Kelley; Alizée Gouronnec; Ran Yan; Cédric Auffray; Jean Albrengues; Mikala Egeblad; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Scott K Lyons; Douglas T Fearon Journal: Science Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Felipe S Furtado; Cristina R Ferrone; Susanna I Lee; Mark Vangel; David A Rosman; Colin Weekes; Motaz Qadan; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; David P Ryan; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Theodore S Hong; Jeffrey W Clark; Robin Striar; David Groshar; Lina G Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.488
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