| Literature DB >> 30217167 |
Sung Uk Bae1, Kyoung Sook Won2, Bong-Il Song2, Woon Kyung Jeong1, Seong Kyu Baek1, Hae Won Kim3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The low sensitivity of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for the evaluation of metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) is mainly due to the partial volume effect in patients with rectal cancer. This retrospective study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT with optimal cut-off values of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), according to LN size, for the evaluation of regional LN in rectal cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: F-18 FDG; Lymph node metastasis; Maximum standardized uptake value; PET/CT; Partial volume effect; Rectal cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30217167 PMCID: PMC6137872 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-018-0165-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Fig. 1Patient STARD flow chart
Patient characteristics
| Characteristicsa | Overall | Groupb | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small LNc | Large LN | ||
| Age, years | 66.7 (10.4) | 67.4 (9.3) | 65.3 (12.4) |
| Male, % | 56.8 | 61 | 48.3 |
| AJCCd Stage, | |||
| I | 69 | 59 | 10 |
| II | 38 | 27 | 11 |
| III | 69 | 32 | 37 |
| IV | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LN diameter, mm | 6.2 (3.0) | 4.6 (1.7) | 9.4 (2.5) |
| SUVmax of LN | 1.8 (2.2) | 1.2 (0.7) | 3.2 (3.2) |
| PET/CT scanner, | |||
| Discovery STE-16 | 79 | 54 | 25 |
| Biograph mCT-64 | 97 | 64 | 33 |
| T stage, n | |||
| T1–2 | 81 | 68 | 13 |
| T3–4 | 95 | 50 | 45 |
| SUVmax of primary tumor, n | |||
| High SUVmax (< 13.0) | 84 | 64 | 20 |
| Low SUVmax (> 13.0) | 92 | 54 | 38 |
aAll values are presented as means (SD)
bPatients were categorized by the long-axis diameter of the regional LN, as follows: small LN, ≤ 7 mm; large LN, > 7 mm
cLN lymph node
dAJCC American Joint Committee on Cancer
Comparison of the diagnostic values between PET/CT using the cut-off values of SUVmax optimized according to the lymph node (LN) size and the fixed SUVmax cut-off value of 2.5
| Group | Cut-off values | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPVa (%) | NPVb (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUCc |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2.5 | 35.8 | 97.2 | 88.9 | 71.1 | 73.9 | 0.665 | 0.071 |
| Optd | 76.1 | 74.3 | 64.6 | 83.5 | 75 | 0.752 | ||
| Small LN | 2.5 | 18.8 | 100 | 100 | 76.8 | 78 | 0.594 | 0.005 |
| 1.1 | 90.6 | 70.9 | 53.7 | 95.3 | 76.3 | 0.808 | ||
| Large LN | 2.5 | 51.4 | 87 | 85.7 | 54.1 | 65.5 | 0.692 | 0.429 |
| 2.1 | 68.6 | 78.3 | 82.8 | 62.1 | 72.4 | 0.734 |
aPPV positive predictive value
bNPV negative predictive value
cAUC area under the curve
dOpt optimal cut-off values of SUVmax (1.1 in the small LN group and 2.1 in the large LN group)
Fig. 2A representative case of regional LN metastasis predicted by optimal SUVmax cut-off values, but not by the fixed SUVmax cut-off value of 2.5. (a) A mildly hypermetabolic lymph node (arrow) was observed in the left perirectal region. The long-axis diameter of the LN was 6 mm, and the patient was classified into the small LN group according to the size criteria. (b) The SUVmax of the LN was 1.8, and exceeded the optimal SUVmax cut-off value of 1.1. Histopathologic examination revealed that the lesion was a metastatic LN
Comparison of diagnostic values between PET/CT using the optimized cut-off values and the fixed cut-off value of 2.5 in patients imaged by PET A and B
| Groups | Cut-off values | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPVa (%) | NPVb (%) | Accuracy (%) | AUCc |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PET A | ||||||||
| Overall | 2.5 | 36.7 | 98.0 | 91.7 | 71.6 | 74.7 | 0.673 | 0.169 |
| Opt | 76.7 | 77.6 | 67.6 | 84.4 | 77.2 | 0.771 | ||
| Small LN | 2.5 | 18.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 74.5 | 75.9 | 0.594 | 0.047 |
| 1.1 | 87.5 | 73.7 | 58.3 | 93.3 | 77.8 | 0.806 | ||
| Large LN | 2.5 | 57.1 | 90.9 | 88.9 | 62.5 | 72.0 | 0.740 | 0.866 |
| 2.1 | 78.6 | 72.7 | 78.6 | 72.7 | 76.0 | 0.756 | ||
| PET B | ||||||||
| Overall | 2.5 | 35.1 | 96.7 | 86.7 | 70.7 | 73.2 | 0.659 | 0.520 |
| Opt | 75.7 | 65.0 | 57.1 | 81.3 | 69.1 | 0.703 | ||
| Small LN | 2.5 | 18.8 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 78.7 | 79.7 | 0.594 | 0.110 |
| 1.0 | 93.8 | 60.4 | 44.1 | 96.7 | 68.8 | 0.771 | ||
| Large LN | 2.5 | 47.6 | 83.3 | 83.3 | 47.6 | 60.6 | 0.655 | 0.162 |
| 1.9 | 61.9 | 83.3 | 86.7 | 55.6 | 69.7 | 0.726 | ||
aPPV positive predictive value
bNPV negative predictive value
cAUC area under the curve
dOpt optimal cut-off values of SUVmax