Verena Plodeck1, Nuh N Rahbari2, Juergen Weitz2, Christoph G Radosa3, Michael Laniado3, Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann3, Klaus Zöphel4, Bettina Beuthien-Baumann5, Joerg Kotzerke4, Joerg van den Hoff6, Ivan Platzek3. 1. Institut und Poliklinik fuer Radiologische Diagnostik, Universitaetsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. verena.plodeck@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik fuer Viszeral-, Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitaetsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 3. Institut und Poliklinik fuer Radiologische Diagnostik, Universitaetsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 4. Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitaetsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 5. Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Abteilung Radiologie, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Institut für Radiopharmazeutische Krebsforschung, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden Rossendorf, Bautzner Landstraße 400, 01328, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of 18F-FDG-PET/MRI in the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. METHODS: Forty-four patients (16 women, 28 men) with a history of rectal cancer who received FDG-PET/MRI between June 2011 and February 2017 at our institution were retrospectively enrolled. Three patients received two FDG-PET/MRIs; thus a total of 47 examinations were included. Pelvic recurrence was confirmed either with histology (n = 27) or imaging follow-up (n = 17) (> 4 months). Two readers (one radiologist, one nuclear medicine physician) interpreted the images in consensus. Pelvic lesions were assessed regarding FDG uptake and morphology. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as accuracy of PET/MRI in detecting recurrence were determined. RESULTS: In 47 FDG-PET/MRIs 30 suspicious pelvic lesions were identified, 29 of which were malignant. Two patients underwent resection and had histologically proven pelvic recurrence without showing suspicious findings on FDG-PET/MRI. Changes in management due to FDG-PET/MRI findings had been implemented in eight patients. Eighty per cent (16/20) of resected patients had histologically negative resection margins (R0), one patient had uncertain resection margins. Sensitivity of FDG-PET/MRI in detecting recurrence was 94%, specificity 94%, positive/negative predictive value and accuracy were 97%, 90% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FDG-PET/MRI is a valuable tool in the diagnosis and staging of pelvic recurrence in patients with rectal cancer. KEY POINTS: • Metabolic information obtained from PET coupled with excellent soft tissue contrast from MRI could facilitate detection of rectal cancer recurrence and assist in treatment planning. • PET/MRI demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of local recurrence of rectal cancer • PET/MRI led to alterations in management in 18.2% of patients.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of 18F-FDG-PET/MRI in the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer. METHODS: Forty-four patients (16 women, 28 men) with a history of rectal cancer who received FDG-PET/MRI between June 2011 and February 2017 at our institution were retrospectively enrolled. Three patients received two FDG-PET/MRIs; thus a total of 47 examinations were included. Pelvic recurrence was confirmed either with histology (n = 27) or imaging follow-up (n = 17) (> 4 months). Two readers (one radiologist, one nuclear medicine physician) interpreted the images in consensus. Pelvic lesions were assessed regarding FDG uptake and morphology. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as accuracy of PET/MRI in detecting recurrence were determined. RESULTS: In 47 FDG-PET/MRIs 30 suspicious pelvic lesions were identified, 29 of which were malignant. Two patients underwent resection and had histologically proven pelvic recurrence without showing suspicious findings on FDG-PET/MRI. Changes in management due to FDG-PET/MRI findings had been implemented in eight patients. Eighty per cent (16/20) of resected patients had histologically negative resection margins (R0), one patient had uncertain resection margins. Sensitivity of FDG-PET/MRI in detecting recurrence was 94%, specificity 94%, positive/negative predictive value and accuracy were 97%, 90% and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:FDG-PET/MRI is a valuable tool in the diagnosis and staging of pelvic recurrence in patients with rectal cancer. KEY POINTS: • Metabolic information obtained from PET coupled with excellent soft tissue contrast from MRI could facilitate detection of rectal cancer recurrence and assist in treatment planning. • PET/MRI demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of local recurrence of rectal cancer • PET/MRI led to alterations in management in 18.2% of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm; Positron-emission tomography; Rectal cancer; Recurrence, local
Authors: A Imdahl; M J Reinhardt; E U Nitzsche; M Mix; A Dingeldey; A Einert; P Baier; E H Farthmann Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: P Flamen; S Stroobants; E Van Cutsem; P Dupont; G Bormans; N De Vadder; F Penninckx; L Van Hoe; L Mortelmans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harvey G Moore; Tim Akhurst; Steven M Larson; Bruce D Minsky; Madhu Mazumdar; Jose G Guillem Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Barbara J Amorim; Theodore S Hong; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; Cristina R Ferrone; David L Berger; Liliana G Bordeianou; Rocco Ricciardi; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Ryan; Jennifer Y Wo; Motaz Qadan; Mark Vangel; Lale Umutlu; David Groshar; Lina G Cañamaques; Debra A Gervais; Umar Mahmood; Bruce R Rosen; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Krista Elise Suarez-Weiss; Alexander Herold; Debra Gervais; Edwin Palmer; Bárbara Amorim; Joseph D King; Li Weier; Tajmir Shahein; Hanna Bernstine; Liran Domachevsk; Lina Garcia Cañamaque; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; David Groshar; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Radiologe Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Filippo Crimì; Silvia Valeggia; Luca Baffoni; Roberto Stramare; Carmelo Lacognata; Gaya Spolverato; Laura Albertoni; Alessandro Spimpolo; Laura Evangelista; Pietro Zucchetta; Diego Cecchin; Salvatore Pucciarelli Journal: Ann Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-31 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Verena Plodeck; Ivan Platzek; Johannes Streitzig; Heiner Nebelung; Sophia Blum; Jens-Peter Kühn; Ralf-Thorsten Hoffmann; Michael Laniado; Enrico Michler; Sebastian Hoberück; Klaus Zöphel; Jörg Kotzerke; Johannes Fritzmann; Jürgen Weitz; Christoph G Radosa Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-08-17
Authors: Miriam K Rutegård; Malin Båtsman; Lennart Blomqvist; Martin Rutegård; Jan Axelsson; Ingrid Ljuslinder; Jörgen Rutegård; Richard Palmqvist; Fredrik Brännström; Patrik Brynolfsson; Katrine Riklund Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-10-31 Impact factor: 3.909