Pierre-Yves Le Roux1,2, Cuong P Duong3, Carlos S Cabalag3, Bimal K Parameswaran4, Jason Callahan4, Rodney J Hicks4,5. 1. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Division of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging, East Melbourne, Australia. pierre-yves.leroux@chu-brest.fr. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Brest University Hospital, EA3878 (GETBO) IFR 148, Brest, France. pierre-yves.leroux@chu-brest.fr. 3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 7 St. Andrews Place, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia. 4. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Division of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging, East Melbourne, Australia. 5. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic utility of gastric distension (GD) FDG PET/CT in both patients with known gastric malignancy and those not known to have gastric malignancy but with incidental focal FDG uptake in the stomach. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 88 patients who underwent FDG PET/CT following GD with hyoscine N-butylbromide (Buscopan®) and water ingestion as part of routine clinical evaluation between 2004 and 2014. FDG PET/CT scans before and after GD were reported blinded to the patient clinical details in 49 patients undergoing pretreatment staging of gastric malignancy and 39 patients who underwent GD following incidental suspicious gastric uptake. The PET findings were validated by a composite clinical standard. RESULTS: In the 49 patients undergoing pretreatment staging of gastric malignancy, GD improved PET detection of the primary tumour (from 80 % to 90 %). PET evaluation of tumour extent was concordant with endoscopic/surgical reports in 31 % (interpreter 1) and 45 % (interpreter 2) using pre-GD images and 73 % and 76 % using GD images. Interobserver agreement also improved with GD (κ = 0.29 to 0.69). Metabolic and morphological quantitative analysis demonstrated a major impact of GD in normal gastric wall but no significant effect in tumour, except a minor increase in SUV related to a delayed acquisition time. The tumour to normal stomach SUVmax ratio increased from 3.8 ± 2.9 to 9.2 ± 8.6 (mean ± SD) with GD (p < 0.0001), facilitating detection and improved assessment of the primary tumour. In 25 (64 %) of the 39 patients with incidental suspicious gastric uptake, acquisition after GD correctly excluded a malignant process. In 10 (71 %) of the remaining 14 patients with persistent suspicious FDG uptake despite GD, malignancy was confirmed and in 3 (21 %) an active but benign pathology was diagnosed. CONCLUSION: GD is a simple way to improve local staging with FDG PET in patients with gastric malignancy. In the setting of incidental suspicious gastric uptake, GD is also an effective tool for ruling out malignancy and leads to the avoidance of unnecessary endoscopy.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic utility of gastric distension (GD) FDG PET/CT in both patients with known gastric malignancy and those not known to have gastric malignancy but with incidental focal FDG uptake in the stomach. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 88 patients who underwent FDG PET/CT following GD with hyoscine N-butylbromide (Buscopan®) and water ingestion as part of routine clinical evaluation between 2004 and 2014. FDG PET/CT scans before and after GD were reported blinded to the patient clinical details in 49 patients undergoing pretreatment staging of gastric malignancy and 39 patients who underwent GD following incidental suspicious gastric uptake. The PET findings were validated by a composite clinical standard. RESULTS: In the 49 patients undergoing pretreatment staging of gastric malignancy, GD improved PET detection of the primary tumour (from 80 % to 90 %). PET evaluation of tumour extent was concordant with endoscopic/surgical reports in 31 % (interpreter 1) and 45 % (interpreter 2) using pre-GD images and 73 % and 76 % using GD images. Interobserver agreement also improved with GD (κ = 0.29 to 0.69). Metabolic and morphological quantitative analysis demonstrated a major impact of GD in normal gastric wall but no significant effect in tumour, except a minor increase in SUV related to a delayed acquisition time. The tumour to normal stomach SUVmax ratio increased from 3.8 ± 2.9 to 9.2 ± 8.6 (mean ± SD) with GD (p < 0.0001), facilitating detection and improved assessment of the primary tumour. In 25 (64 %) of the 39 patients with incidental suspicious gastric uptake, acquisition after GD correctly excluded a malignant process. In 10 (71 %) of the remaining 14 patients with persistent suspicious FDG uptake despite GD, malignancy was confirmed and in 3 (21 %) an active but benign pathology was diagnosed. CONCLUSION:GD is a simple way to improve local staging with FDG PET in patients with gastric malignancy. In the setting of incidental suspicious gastric uptake, GD is also an effective tool for ruling out malignancy and leads to the avoidance of unnecessary endoscopy.
Authors: Soo Jin Lee; Won Woo Lee; Hai-Jeon Yoon; Ho-Young Lee; Kyoung Ho Lee; Young Hoon Kim; Do Joong Park; Hyung-Ho Kim; Young So; Sang Eun Kim Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: David Dudoignon; David A Pattison; Damien Legallois; Rodney J Hicks; Nicolas Aide Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 3.909