Aamer Mahmud1, Raymond Poon2, Derek Jonker3. 1. 1 Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Queen's University, Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario, Kingston General Hospital , Kingston, ONT , Canada. 2. 2 Program in Evidence-Based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre , Hamilton, ONT , Canada. 3. 3 Division of Medical Oncology, University of Ottawa, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, General Campus , Ottawa, ONT , Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to synthesize and summarize the evidence surrounding the clinical utility of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients with anal canal cancer. METHODS: The literature was searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases. Studies comparing PET or PET/CT with conventional imaging in the staging, response evaluation and follow-up of anal canal cancer were deemed eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. For the detection of primary tumour in situ, the pooled sensitivity was 99% for PET or PET/CT and 67% for CT. For the detection of inguinal lymph nodes, PET/CT had an overall sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 76%. PET or PET/CT upstaged 5.1 to 37.5% of patients and downstaged 8.2 to 26.7% of patients. Treatment plans were modified in 12.5 to 59.3% of patients, which consisted mainly of radiotherapy dose or field changes. Complete response on PET or PET/CT is a good prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT seems to add value to conventional imaging in the initial staging of patients with T2-4 disease but further high-quality research is required to validate this. There is insufficient evidence at this time to recommend a routine use of PET/CT in the assessment of treatment response or follow-up. Advances in knowledge: PET/CT appears to alter the disease stage and management in a meaningful number of patients to justify its use as part of staging investigations in locally advanced cases.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to synthesize and summarize the evidence surrounding the clinical utility of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients with anal canal cancer. METHODS: The literature was searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases. Studies comparing PET or PET/CT with conventional imaging in the staging, response evaluation and follow-up of anal canal cancer were deemed eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. For the detection of primary tumour in situ, the pooled sensitivity was 99% for PET or PET/CT and 67% for CT. For the detection of inguinal lymph nodes, PET/CT had an overall sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 76%. PET or PET/CT upstaged 5.1 to 37.5% of patients and downstaged 8.2 to 26.7% of patients. Treatment plans were modified in 12.5 to 59.3% of patients, which consisted mainly of radiotherapy dose or field changes. Complete response on PET or PET/CT is a good prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT seems to add value to conventional imaging in the initial staging of patients with T2-4 disease but further high-quality research is required to validate this. There is insufficient evidence at this time to recommend a routine use of PET/CT in the assessment of treatment response or follow-up. Advances in knowledge: PET/CT appears to alter the disease stage and management in a meaningful number of patients to justify its use as part of staging investigations in locally advanced cases.
Authors: H Bartelink; F Roelofsen; F Eschwege; P Rougier; J F Bosset; D G Gonzalez; D Peiffert; M van Glabbeke; M Pierart Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Roger D James; Robert Glynne-Jones; Helen M Meadows; David Cunningham; Arthur Sun Myint; Mark P Saunders; Timothy Maughan; Alec McDonald; Sharadah Essapen; Martin Leslie; Stephen Falk; Charles Wilson; Simon Gollins; Rubina Begum; Jonathan Ledermann; Latha Kadalayil; David Sebag-Montefiore Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: F L Day; E Link; S Ngan; T Leong; K Moodie; C Lynch; M Michael; E de Winton; A Hogg; R J Hicks; A Heriot Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Lisa A Min; Wouter V Vogel; Max J Lahaye; Monique Maas; Maarten L Donswijk; Erik Vegt; Miranda Kusters; Henry J Zijlmans; Katarzyna Jóźwiak; Sander Roberti; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Doenja M J Lambregts Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ahmed Allam Mohamed; Marsha Schlenter; Alexander Heinzel; Svetlana Kintsler; Michael J Eble Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Robert Siegel; Ricardo Niklas Werner; Stephan Koswig; Matthew Gaskins; Claus Rödel; Felix Aigner Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 8.251
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Ursula Nestle; Nathalie L Albert; Christian Baues; Ambros Beer; Andreas Buck; Volker Budach; Rebecca Bütof; Stephanie E Combs; Thorsten Derlin; Matthias Eiber; Wolfgang P Fendler; Christian Furth; Cihan Gani; Eleni Gkika; Anca-L Grosu; Christoph Henkenberens; Harun Ilhan; Steffen Löck; Simone Marnitz-Schulze; Matthias Miederer; Michael Mix; Nils H Nicolay; Maximilian Niyazi; Christoph Pöttgen; Claus M Rödel; Imke Schatka; Sarah M Schwarzenboeck; Andrei S Todica; Wolfgang Weber; Simone Wegen; Thomas Wiegel; Constantinos Zamboglou; Daniel Zips; Klaus Zöphel; Sebastian Zschaeck; Daniela Thorwarth; Esther G C Troost Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Clelia Di Carlo; Maika di Benedetto; Lisa Vicenzi; Sara Costantini; Francesca Cucciarelli; Francesco Fenu; Eleonora Arena; Cristina Mariucci; Maria Montisci; Valeria Panni; Fabiola Patani; Marco Valenti; Andrea Palucci; Luca Burroni; Giovanna Mantello Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.244