Marcelo A Queiroz1, Cinthia D Ortega2, Felipe R Ferreira2, Fernanda C Capareli2, Sergio C Nahas3, Giovanni G Cerri2, Carlos A Buchpiguel4. 1. Nuclear Medicine Division, Department of Radiology and Oncology, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Rua Doutor Ovidio Pires de Campos, 872, Sao Paulo, SP, 05403-010, Brazil. marcelo.queiroz@hc.fm.usp.br. 2. Department of Radiology and Oncology, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. 3. Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. 4. Nuclear Medicine Division, Department of Radiology and Oncology, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Rua Doutor Ovidio Pires de Campos, 872, Sao Paulo, SP, 05403-010, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the associations between positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features for primary rectal tumors and metastases. PROCEDURES: Between November 2016 and April 2018, 101 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma were included in this prospective study (NCT02537340) for whole-body PET/MRI for baseline staging. Two readers analyzed the PET/MRI; they assessed the semiquantitative PET features of the primary tumor and the N- and M-stages. Another reader analyzed the MRI features for locoregional staging. The reference standard for confirming metastatic disease was biopsy or imaging follow-up. Non-parametric tests were used to compare the PET/MRI features of the participants with or without metastatic disease. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations between the primary tumor PET/MRI features and metastatic disease. RESULTS: A total of 101 consecutive participants (median age 62 years; range: 33-87 years) were included. Metastases were detected in 35.6% (36 of 101) of the participants. Among the PET/MRI features, higher tumor lesion glycolysis (352.95 vs 242.70; P = .46) and metabolic tumor volume (36.15 vs 26.20; P = .03) were more frequent in patients with than in those without metastases. Additionally, patients with metastases had a higher incidence of PET-positive (64% vs 32%; P = .009) and MRI-positive (56% vs 32%; P = .03) mesorectal lymph nodes, extramural vascular invasion (86% vs 49%; P > .001), and involvement of mesorectal fascia (64% vs 42%; P = .04); there were also differences between the mrT stages of these two groups (P = .008). No differences in the maximum standardized uptake values for the primary tumors in patients with and without metastases were observed (18.9 vs 19.1; P = .56). Multivariable logistic regression showed that extramural vascular invasion on MRI was the only significant predictor (adjusted odds ratio, 3.8 [95% CI: 1.1, 13.9]; P = .001). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI facilitated the identification of participants with a high risk of metastatic disease, though these findings were based mainly on MRI features.
PURPOSE: To analyze the associations between positron emission tomography (PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features for primary rectal tumors and metastases. PROCEDURES: Between November 2016 and April 2018, 101 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma were included in this prospective study (NCT02537340) for whole-body PET/MRI for baseline staging. Two readers analyzed the PET/MRI; they assessed the semiquantitative PET features of the primary tumor and the N- and M-stages. Another reader analyzed the MRI features for locoregional staging. The reference standard for confirming metastatic disease was biopsy or imaging follow-up. Non-parametric tests were used to compare the PET/MRI features of the participants with or without metastatic disease. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations between the primary tumor PET/MRI features and metastatic disease. RESULTS: A total of 101 consecutive participants (median age 62 years; range: 33-87 years) were included. Metastases were detected in 35.6% (36 of 101) of the participants. Among the PET/MRI features, higher tumor lesion glycolysis (352.95 vs 242.70; P = .46) and metabolic tumor volume (36.15 vs 26.20; P = .03) were more frequent in patients with than in those without metastases. Additionally, patients with metastases had a higher incidence of PET-positive (64% vs 32%; P = .009) and MRI-positive (56% vs 32%; P = .03) mesorectal lymph nodes, extramural vascular invasion (86% vs 49%; P > .001), and involvement of mesorectal fascia (64% vs 42%; P = .04); there were also differences between the mrT stages of these two groups (P = .008). No differences in the maximum standardized uptake values for the primary tumors in patients with and without metastases were observed (18.9 vs 19.1; P = .56). Multivariable logistic regression showed that extramural vascular invasion on MRI was the only significant predictor (adjusted odds ratio, 3.8 [95% CI: 1.1, 13.9]; P = .001). CONCLUSION: PET/MRI facilitated the identification of participants with a high risk of metastatic disease, though these findings were based mainly on MRI features.
Authors: Marcelo A Queiroz; Cinthia D Ortega; Felipe R Ferreira; Sergio C Nahas; Giovanni G Cerri; Carlos A Buchpiguel Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-06-20 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Onofrio A Catalano; Susanna I Lee; Chiara Parente; Christy Cauley; Felipe S Furtado; Robin Striar; Andrea Soricelli; Marco Salvatore; Yan Li; Lale Umutlu; Lina Garcia Cañamaque; David Groshar; Umar Mahmood; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; David P Ryan; Jeffrey W Clark; Jennifer Wo; Theodore S Hong; Hiroko Kunitake; Liliana Bordeianou; David Berger; Rocco Ricciardi; Bruce Rosen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: H J Schmoll; E Van Cutsem; A Stein; V Valentini; B Glimelius; K Haustermans; B Nordlinger; C J van de Velde; J Balmana; J Regula; I D Nagtegaal; R G Beets-Tan; D Arnold; F Ciardiello; P Hoff; D Kerr; C H Köhne; R Labianca; T Price; W Scheithauer; A Sobrero; J Tabernero; D Aderka; S Barroso; G Bodoky; J Y Douillard; H El Ghazaly; J Gallardo; A Garin; R Glynne-Jones; K Jordan; A Meshcheryakov; D Papamichail; P Pfeiffer; I Souglakos; S Turhal; A Cervantes Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Jonathan T Whaley; Annemarie T Fernandes; Robert Sackmann; John P Plastaras; Boon-Keng Teo; Surbhi Grover; Rodolfo F Perini; James M Metz; Daniel A Pryma; Smith Apisarnthanarax Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2013-10-22
Authors: Miriam K Rutegård; Malin Båtsman; Jan Axelsson; Patrik Brynolfsson; Fredrik Brännström; Jörgen Rutegård; Ingrid Ljuslinder; Lennart Blomqvist; Richard Palmqvist; Martin Rutegård; Katrine Riklund Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Felipe S Furtado; Krista E Suarez-Weiss; Mark Vangel; Jeffrey W Clark; James C Cusack; Theodore Hong; Lawrence Blaszkowsky; Jennifer Wo; Robin Striar; Lale Umutlu; Heike E Daldrup-Link; David Groshar; Ricciardi Rocco; Liliana Bordeianou; Mark A Anderson; Amirkasra Mojtahed; Motaz Qadan; Cristina Ferrone; Onofrio A Catalano Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 9.075