| Literature DB >> 32767862 |
Nam Hee Kim1, Sung Ryol Lee2, Young Hwan Kim3, Hong Joo Kim4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value and prognostic relevance of FDG positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET-CT) in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients.Entities:
Keywords: Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; FDG PET-CT; Maximum standardized uptake value; Survival
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32767862 PMCID: PMC7689144 DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0891
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Radiol ISSN: 1229-6929 Impact factor: 3.500
Clinicopathologic Characteristics of Patients
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Total No. of patients (%) | 234 (100) |
| Age (years) | |
| Median (range) | 72 (46–99) |
| Sex (%) | |
| Male:Female | 123 (52.6):111 (47.4) |
| Final diagnosis (%) | |
| Common bile duct cancer | 156 (66.7) |
| Hilar cholangiocarcinoma | 78 (33.3) |
| Gross morphologic type (%) | |
| Mass forming | 38 (16.2) |
| Periductal infiltrating | 187 (79.9) |
| Intraductal papillary growing | 9 (3.8) |
| Differentiation (%) | |
| Well differentiated | 56 (23.9) |
| Moderately differentiated | 95 (40.6) |
| Poorly differentiated | 16 (6.8) |
| Could not be assessed | 67 (28.6) |
| Diagnosis based on (%) | |
| Surgical specimen | 123 (52.6) |
| Endoscopic biopsy | 93 (39.7) |
| Follow-up | 18 (7.7) |
| Treatment modality (%) | |
| Curative intent surgery | 120 (51.3) |
| Explorative laparotomy | 4 (1.7) |
| Medical treatment such as palliative chemotherapy or best supportive treatment | 110 (47.0) |
Values are presented as median (range) and number (percentages) unless otherwise indicated.
18F-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (FDG PET-CT) Results for Primary Tumor Detection, Positive Regional Lymph Nodes and Distant Metastases Compared to Multi-Detector Row CT (MDCT), and MRI
| Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary tumor | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 78.6 (184/234) | - | - | - | - |
| MDCT | 94.9 (222/234) | - | - | - | - |
| MRI | 97.4 (143/147) | - | - | - | - |
| | < 0.001 | ||||
| Lymph node metastases | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 43.6 (41/94) | 95.0 (133/140) | 85.4 (41/48) | 71.5 (133/186) | 74.4 (174/234) |
| MDCT | 74.5 (70/94) | 72.1 (101/140) | 64.2 (70/109) | 80.8 (101/125) | 73.1 (171/234) |
| MRI | 77.6 (45/58) | 69.7 (62/89) | 62.5 (45/72) | 82.7 (62/75) | 72.8 (107/147) |
| | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | NS | NS |
| Distant metastases | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 85.0 (17/20) | 95.8 (205/214) | 65.4 (17/26) | 98.6 (205/208) | 94.9 (222/234) |
| MDCT | 80.0 (16/20) | 94.9 (203/214) | 59.3 (16/27) | 98.1 (203/207) | 93.6 (219/234) |
| MRI | 92.0 (12/13) | 94.8 (127/134) | 63.2 (12/19) | 99.2 (127/128) | 94.6 (139/147) |
| | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Primary tumor size < 25 mm | |||||
| Primary tumor | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 78.1 (75/96) | - | - | - | - |
| MDCT | 91.7 (88/96) | - | - | - | - |
| MRI | 96.4 (53/55) | - | - | - | - |
| | < 0.001 | ||||
| Lymph node metastases | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 35.7 (10/28) | 95.6 (65/68) | 76.9 (10/13) | 78.3 (65/83) | 78.1 (75/96) |
| MDCT | 67.9 (19/28) | 75.0 (51/68) | 52.8 (19/36) | 85.0 (51/60) | 72.9 (70/96) |
| MRI | 80.0 (12/15) | 65.0 (26/40) | 46.2 (12/26) | 89.7 (26/29) | 69.1 (38/50) |
| | < 0.05 | < 0.001 | NS | NS | NS |
| Distant metastases | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 100.0 (2/2) | 96.8 (91/94) | 40.0 (2/5) | 100.0 (91/91) | 96.9 (93/96) |
| MDCT | 100.0 (2/2) | 95.7 (90/94) | 33.3 (2/6) | 100.0 (90/90) | 95.8 (92/96) |
| MRI | 100.0 (2/2) | 92.5 (49/53) | 33.3 (2/6) | 100.0 (49/49) | 92.7 (51/55) |
| | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Primary tumor size ≥ 25 mm | |||||
| Primary tumor | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 79.0 (109/138) | - | - | - | - |
| MDCT | 97.1 (134/138) | - | - | - | - |
| MRI | 97.8 (90/92) | - | - | - | - |
| | < 0.001 | ||||
| Lymph node metastases | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 47.0 (31/66) | 94.4 (68/72) | 88.6 (31/35) | 60.0 (68/103) | 71.7 (99/138) |
| MDCT | 77.3 (51/66) | 69.4 (50/72) | 69.9 (51/73) | 76.9 (50/65) | 73.2 (101/138) |
| MRI | 76.7 (33/43) | 73.5 (36/49) | 71.7 (33/46) | 78.3 (36/46) | 75.0 (69/92) |
| | < 0.05 | < 0.001 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | NS |
| Distant metastases | |||||
| FDG PET-CT | 83.3 (15/18) | 95.0 (114/120) | 71.4 (15/21) | 97.4 (114/117) | 93.5 (129/138) |
| MDCT | 77.8 (14/18) | 96.6 (113/117) | 77.8 (14/18) | 96.6 (113/117) | 94.1 (127/135) |
| MRI | 90.9 (10/11) | 96.3 (78/81) | 76.9 (10/13) | 98.7 (78/79) | 95.7 (88/92) |
| | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Values are presented as percentages (number) unless otherwise indicated. NPV = negative predictive value, NS = not significant, PPV = positive predictive value
Correlation of Maximum Standardized Uptake Value (SUVmax) of Primary Tumor and Clinic-Pathological Factors in Patients with Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
| No. of Patients | SUVmax (Mean ± SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.212 | ||
| ≥ 65 | 171 | 4.4 ± 3.7 | |
| < 65 | 63 | 3.8 ± 2.8 | |
| Sex | 0.005 | ||
| Male | 123 | 3.6 ± 2.8 | |
| Female | 111 | 4.9 ± 4.1 | |
| Diagnosis | 0.166 | ||
| Common bile duct cancer | 156 | 4.0 ± 3.2 | |
| Hilar cholangiocarcinoma | 78 | 4.7 ± 4.2 | |
| Gross morphologic type | 0.009 | ||
| Mass forming | 38 | 5.8 ± 4.2 | |
| Periductal infiltrating | 187 | 3.9 ± 3.3 | |
| Intraductal papillary growing | 9 | 4.3 ± 2.7 | |
| Primary tumor size (mm) | 0.001 | ||
| ≥ 25 | 138 | 4.8 ± 4.1 | |
| < 25 | 96 | 3.4 ± 2.3 | |
| Histologic differentiation | 0.002 | ||
| Well differentiated | 56 | 3.5 ± 2.7 | |
| Moderately differentiated | 95 | 4.0 ± 3.1 | |
| Poorly differentiated | 16 | 6.8 ± 4.2 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.001 | ||
| N0 | 140 | 3.5 ± 2.6 | |
| N1 | 94 | 5.3 ± 4.4 | |
| Distant organ metastasis | < 0.001 | ||
| M0 | 214 | 4.0 ± 3.3 | |
| M1 | 20 | 7.1 ± 4.4 | |
| AJCC tumor staging | < 0.001 | ||
| IA | 22 | 3.9 ± 2.9 | |
| IB | 49 | 3.2 ± 2.2 | |
| IIA | 58 | 3.5 ± 2.6 | |
| IIB | 62 | 4.7 ± 3.7 | |
| III | 22 | 5.0 ± 5.4 | |
| IV | 21 | 7.0 ± 4.4 |
AJCC = American Joint Committee on Cancer, SD = standard deviation
Fig. 1Cumulative overall survival rates according to baseline characteristics.
(A) Age, (B) Sex, (C) Diagnosis, (D) Treatment modality, (E) AJCC tumor staging, (F) Histologic differentiation, (G) TSUVmax, (H) NSUVmax, and (I) MSUVmax. Cumulative overall survival rate was significantly higher in patients with CBD cancer, curative-intent surgery, lower AJCC staging, well-differentiated histology, SUVmax of primary tumor < 5, SUVmax of regional lymph nodes < 5, and SUVmax of metastatic lesions < 5 (all p < 0.001).
AJCC = American Joint Committee on Cancer, CBD = common bile duct, MSUVmax = SUVmax of metastatic lesions, NSUVmax = SUVmax of regional lymph nodes, TSUVmax =SUVmax of primary tumor
Independent and Significant Clinicopathologic Factors of Poor Overall Survival for Patients with Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
| Variables | Crude HR (95% CI) | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||||
| < 65 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| ≥ 65 | 1.40 (0.99–1.98) | 0.061 | 1.32 (0.82–2.14) | 0.252 |
| Male | 0.78 (0.57–1.05) | 0.097 | 1.15 (0.75–1.77) | 0.513 |
| Diagnosis | ||||
| Common bile duct cancer | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Hilar cholangiocarcinoma | 2.42 (1.74–3.35) | < 0.001 | 1.90 (1.09–3.30) | 0.023 |
| Histologic differentiation | ||||
| Well differentiated | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Moderately differentiated | 2.35 (1.52–3.65) | < 0.001 | 2.29 (1.39–3.79) | 0.001 |
| Poorly differentiated | 3.27 (1.58–6.80) | 0.001 | 1.40 (0.56–3.52) | 0.474 |
| AJCC tumor staging | ||||
| IA | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| IB | 3.74 (1.63–8.60) | 0.002 | 2.77 (1.15–6.68) | 0.023 |
| IIA | 4.99 (2.20–11.30) | < 0.001 | 3.48 (1.45–8.36) | 0.005 |
| IIB | 7.71 (3.37–17.64) | < 0.001 | 4.09 (1.61–10.41) | 0.003 |
| III | 14.31 (5.76–35.55) | < 0.001 | 2.71 (0.82–8.97) | 0.103 |
| IV | 23.14 (9.14–58.58) | < 0.001 | 1.30 (0.29–5.87) | 0.731 |
| Treatment modality | ||||
| Curative intent surgery | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Explorative laparotomy | 4.31 (1.55–12.01) | 0.005 | 3.29 (1.12–9.60) | 0.030 |
| Medical treatment | 6.84 (4.70–9.95) | < 0.001 | 9.59 (4.92–18.71) | < 0.001 |
| SUVmax of primary tumor | ||||
| < 5 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| ≥ 5 | 1.72 (1.26–2.35) | 0.001 | 1.75 (1.13–2.69) | 0.012 |
| SUVmax of regional lymph nodes | ||||
| < 5 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| ≥ 5 | 3.32 (1.89–5.81) | < 0.001 | 1.76 (0.71–4.37) | 0.225 |
| SUVmax of distant metastases | ||||
| < 5 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| ≥ 5 | 4.99 (2.67–9.31) | < 0.001 | 8.10 (1.96–33.50) | 0.004 |
CI = confidence interval, HR = hazard ratio, SUVmax = maximal standardized uptake value
Fig. 2Similar cumulative overall survival rates between patients with WD histology and TSUVmax ≥ 5, and those with MD/PD histology and TSUVmax < 5 (p = 0.056).
MD = moderately differentiated, PD = poorly differentiated, WD = well differentiated
Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis and Distant Metastasis at Time of Diagnosis, and Mortality during Follow-Up Period, among 187 Patients with Periductal Infiltrating Type
| Variables | Lymph Node Metastasis | Distant Metastasis | Death | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
| SUVmax of primary tumor | ||||||
| < 5 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) |
| ≥ 5 | 1.92 (1.00–3.69) | 1.60 (0.55–4.63) | 7.30 (2.14–24.94) | 100.57 (3.94–2567.43) | 1.75 (1.21–2.52) | 1.81 (1.04–3.15) |
| Primary tumor size (cm) | ||||||
| < 2.5 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | - | - |
| ≥ 2.5 | 2.20 (1.20–4.01) | 1.27 (0.52–3.10) | 10.45 (1.33–82.14) | 6.03 (0.24–153.92) | ||
| Age (years) | ||||||
| < 65 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | |
| ≥ 65 | 2.23 (1.10–4.50) | 4.52 (1.56–13.06) | 1.20 (0.32–4.55) | 1.42 (0.95–2.12) | 1.58 (0.90–2.77) | |
| Male | 0.60 (0.33–1.07) | 0.57 (0.24–1.36) | 0.37 (0.11–1.25) | 0.69 (0.49–0.96) | 0.83 (0.51–1.35) | |
| Diagnosis | ||||||
| Common bile duct cancer | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) |
| Hilar cholangiocarcinoma | 2.93 (1.58–5.43) | 3.61 (1.44–9.06) | 4.39 (1.30–14.84) | 31.31 (2.01–487.21) | 2.10 (1.47–2.99) | 1.58 (0.88–2.81) |
| Histologic differentiation | ||||||
| Well differentiated | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) |
| Moderately differentiated | 4.18 (1.56–11.19) | 4.90 (1.63–14.69) | 0.97 (0.09–11.09) | 0.15 (0.01–3.74) | 2.58 (1.52–4.40) | 3.77 (1.94–7.33) |
| Poorly differentiated | 33.58 (2.98–188.75) | 33.88 (4.85–236.67) | 18.00 (1.88–172.23) | 1.09 (0.24–153.92) | 4.32 (1.96–9.50) | 3.15 (1.24–8.03) |
| AJCC tumor staging | - | - | - | - | ||
| IA | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||||
| IB | 3.52 (1.35–9.22) | 4.59 (1.54–13.71) | ||||
| IIA | 4.33 (1.68–11.20) | 4.70 (1.54–14.38) | ||||
| IIB | 6.88 (2.63–17.98) | 6.25 (2.02–19.30) | ||||
| III | 15.76 (5.53–44.90) | 3.95 (1.00–15.66) | ||||
| IV | 14.16 (4.70–42.63) | 4.71 (0.96–23.19) | ||||
| Treatment modality | - | - | - | - | ||
| Curative intent surgery | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||||
| Explorative laparotomy | 4.05 (1.44–11.42) | 2.69 (0.90–8.03) | ||||
| Medical treatment | 5.96 (3.95–9.00) | 7.38 (3.54–15.39) | ||||
OR = odds ratio