» Articles » PMID: 22866255

The Clinical Meaning of Benign Colon Uptake in (18)F-FDG PET: Comparison with Colonoscopic Findings

Overview
Journal Clin Endosc
Date 2012 Aug 7
PMID 22866255
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background/aims: Benign colon (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake is frequently observed in asymptomatic individuals. Aims of this study were to investigate the benign colon uptake by whole body FDG-positron emission tomography (PET) in asymptomatic adults and to correlate those results with colonoscopic and histologic findings.

Methods: Among 3,540 subjects who had undergone FDG-PET, 43 subjects who were diagnosed to have benign colon uptake in FDG-PET and underwent colonoscopy were retrospectively reviewed. Subjects were classified as diffuse or focal groups based on their FDG uptake patterns. PET results were analyzed together with colonoscopic and histologic findings.

Results: Forty-three subjects showed benign colon uptake in FDG-PET; 28 of them were shown as the diffuse group, while other 15 subjects were classified as the focal group. Five subjects among those showed diffuse uptake were diagnosed as adenoma. Seven among 15 subjects who showed focal uptake were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma (n=2), adenoma (n=3), or non-neoplastic polyp (n=2). Positive predictive values were 25% in the diffuse group and 47% in the focal group.

Conclusions: We recommend that patients showing benign FDG uptake in the colon should be further evaluated by colonoscopy, especially for patients with focal FDG uptake.

Citing Articles

Combined SUVmax and localized colonic wall thickening parameters to identify high-risk lesions from incidental focal colorectal F-FDG uptake foci.

Xu W, Li H, Guo Z, Zhang L, Zhang R, Zhang L Front Oncol. 2022; 12:972096.

PMID: 36033516 PMC: 9416927. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.972096.


Assessment of incidental focal colorectal uptake by analysis of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography parameters.

Lee H, Hwang K, Kwon K World J Clin Cases. 2022; 10(17):5634-5645.

PMID: 35979099 PMC: 9258383. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i17.5634.


Interim [F]FDG PET/CT can predict response to anti-PD-1 treatment in metastatic melanoma.

Sachpekidis C, Kopp-Schneider A, Pan L, Papamichail D, Haberkorn U, Hassel J Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020; 48(6):1932-1943.

PMID: 33336264 PMC: 8113306. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-020-05137-7.


Incidental colorectal FDG uptake on PET/CT scan and lesions observed during subsequent colonoscopy: a systematic review.

Kousgaard S, Thorlacius-Ussing O Tech Coloproctol. 2017; 21(7):521-529.

PMID: 28620878 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-017-1652-6.


Unsuspected Active Ulcerative Colitis in a Patient With Dermatomyositis: A Rare Association Detected on F-FDG PET/CT During the Search for an Occult Malignancy.

Rayamajhi S, Reddy Gorla A, Basher R, Sood A, Mittal B Indian J Nucl Med. 2017; 32(2):130-132.

PMID: 28533643 PMC: 5439209. DOI: 10.4103/0972-3919.202238.


References
1.
Falk P, Gupta N, Thorson A, Frick M, Boman B, Christensen M . Positron emission tomography for preoperative staging of colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994; 37(2):153-6. DOI: 10.1007/BF02047538. View

2.
Keogan M, Lowe V, Baker M, McDermott V, Lyerly H, Coleman R . Local recurrence of rectal cancer: evaluation with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging. Abdom Imaging. 1997; 22(3):332-7. DOI: 10.1007/s002619900202. View

3.
Kresnik E, Mikosch P, Gallowitsch H, Heinisch M, Lind P . F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Nucl Med. 2001; 26(10):867. DOI: 10.1097/00003072-200110000-00015. View

4.
Kamel E, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, Schiesser M, Fried M, Padberg B . Significance of incidental 18F-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET/CT: correlation with endoscopic and histopathologic results. J Nucl Med. 2004; 45(11):1804-10. View

5.
Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O, Visokai V, Trubac M, Schneiderova M . Routine (18)F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med. 2003; 44(11):1784-8. View