Oscar K Serrano1,2, Charito Love3, Inessa Goldman4, Kevin Huang2, Nicole Ng2, Tony Abraham3, Raphaella Da Silva3, Patricia Friedmann2, Steven K Libutti1,2, Timothy J Kennedy1,2. 1. Department of Surgery, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. 2. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, New York. 3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York. 4. Department of Radiology, Montefiore Einstein Center for Cancer Care, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The value of FDG-PET in the staging of gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) has been subject to debate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of GA patients between 2006 and 2014 and identified those who had a CT and FDG-PET before initiating treatment. CT and FDG-PET images were analyzed by a blinded body radiologist and nuclear physician, respectively. Disease stage was assessed, looking at primary tumor (PT), locoregional (LLN) and distant lymph node disease (DLN), and metastasis (M). RESULTS: We identified 608 patients who had biopsy-proven GA and 207 (34.0%) had a CT and FDG-PET as part of their staging work-up. Of these, imaging from 166 (27.3%) patients was available for review. CT identified PT, LLN, DLN, and M in 120 (72.3%), 84 (50.6%), 25 (15.1%), and 32 (19.3%) patients, respectively; while FDG-PET identified PT, LLN, DLN, and M in 125 (75.3%), 78 (47.0%), 41 (24.7%), and 27 (16.3%) of patients, respectively. FDG-PET up-staged 31 (18.7%) patients while it down-staged 17 (10.2%) patients. Of patients who were up-staged, 20 (64.5%) developed progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of FDG-PET as a valuable adjunct to CT in the staging of GA, as it changed the stage in 48 (28.9%) patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:640-646.
BACKGROUND: The value of FDG-PET in the staging of gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) has been subject to debate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of GA patients between 2006 and 2014 and identified those who had a CT and FDG-PET before initiating treatment. CT and FDG-PET images were analyzed by a blinded body radiologist and nuclear physician, respectively. Disease stage was assessed, looking at primary tumor (PT), locoregional (LLN) and distant lymph node disease (DLN), and metastasis (M). RESULTS: We identified 608 patients who had biopsy-proven GA and 207 (34.0%) had a CT and FDG-PET as part of their staging work-up. Of these, imaging from 166 (27.3%) patients was available for review. CT identified PT, LLN, DLN, and M in 120 (72.3%), 84 (50.6%), 25 (15.1%), and 32 (19.3%) patients, respectively; while FDG-PET identified PT, LLN, DLN, and M in 125 (75.3%), 78 (47.0%), 41 (24.7%), and 27 (16.3%) of patients, respectively. FDG-PET up-staged 31 (18.7%) patients while it down-staged 17 (10.2%) patients. Of patients who were up-staged, 20 (64.5%) developed progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of FDG-PET as a valuable adjunct to CT in the staging of GA, as it changed the stage in 48 (28.9%) patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:640-646.
Authors: Karen D Bosch; Sugama Chicklore; Gary J Cook; Andrew R Davies; Mark Kelly; James A Gossage; Cara R Baker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-03 Impact factor: 9.236