» Articles » PMID: 29333115

Clinical Significance of Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/computed Tomography in the Follow-up of Colorectal Cancer: Searching off Approaches Increasing Specificity for Detection of Recurrence

Overview
Journal Radiol Oncol
Publisher Sciendo
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2018 Jan 16
PMID 29333115
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Nearly 40% of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurs within 2 years after resection of primary tumor. Imaging with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is the most recent modality and often applied for the evaluation of metastatic spread during the follow-up period. Our goal was to study the diagnostic importance of F-FDG-PET/CT data of maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), total lesion glycolysis (TLG) and the difference of SUVmax on dual-time imaging in CRC.

Patients And Methods: We examined the SUVmax value of lesions on control or restaging F-FDG-PET/CT of 53 CRC patients. All lesions with increased SUVmax values were confirmed by colonoscopy or histopathology. We compared PET/CT results with conventional imaging modalities (CT, MRI) and tumor markers (carbohydrate antigen 19-9 [Ca 19-9], carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA]).

Results: Mean SUVmax was 6.9 ± 5.6 in benign group, 12.7 ± 6.1 in malignant group. Mean TLG values of malignant group and benign group were 401 and 148, respectively. F-FDG-PET/CT was truely positive in 48% of patients with normal Ca 19-9 or CEA levels and truely negative in 10% of cases with elevated Ca 19-9 or CEA. CT or MRI detected suspicious malignancy in 32% of the patients and F-FDG-PET/CT was truely negative in 35% of these cases. We found the most important and striking statistical difference of TLG value between the groups with benign and recurrent disease.

Conclusions: Although SUVmax is a strong metabolic parameter (p = 0.008), TLG seems to be the best predictor in recurrence of CRC (p = 0.001); both are increasing the specificity of F-FDG-PET/CT.

Citing Articles

Diagnostic Performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the Detection of Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Correlation with Biochemical Markers and Conventional Imaging Modalities.

Mihailovic J, Roganovic J, Starcevic I, Nikolic I, Prvulovic Bunovic N, Nikin Z J Clin Med. 2024; 13(12).

PMID: 38930131 PMC: 11204678. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123602.


Preoperative metabolic parameters of F-FDG PET/CT are associated with TNM stage and prognosis of colorectal cancer patients.

Lu X, Wang G, Feng L, Kan Y, Wang W, Yang J Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2024; 14(1):462-475.

PMID: 38223114 PMC: 10784033. DOI: 10.21037/qims-23-966.


Statistical Modeling of Relations Between PET/CT Parameters and CEA in Recurrent and Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Milardovic R, Dzananovic L, Beslija S, Beslic N, Puhalovic A, Cavaljuga S Acta Inform Med. 2023; 31(2):115-120.

PMID: 37711491 PMC: 10498371. DOI: 10.5455/aim.2023.31.115-120.


Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Follow-up of Colorectal Cancer.

Milardovic R, Beslic N, Sadija A, Ceric S, Bukvic M, Dzananovic L Acta Inform Med. 2020; 28(2):119-123.

PMID: 32742064 PMC: 7382771. DOI: 10.5455/aim.2020.28.119-123.

References
1.
Chiaravalloti A, Fiorentini A, Palombo E, Rinino D, Lacanfora A, Danieli R . Evaluation of recurrent disease in the re-staging of colorectal cancer by F-FDG PET/CT: Use of CEA and CA 19-9 in patient selection. Oncol Lett. 2016; 12(5):4209-4213. PMC: 5104254. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2016.5143. View

2.
Maas M, Rutten I, Nelemans P, Lambregts D, Cappendijk V, Beets G . What is the most accurate whole-body imaging modality for assessment of local and distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis : imaging for recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38(8):1560-71. PMC: 3126998. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-011-1785-1. View

3.
Giacomobono S, Gallicchio R, Capacchione D, Nardelli A, Gattozzi D, Lettini G . F-18 FDG PET/CT in the assessment of patients with unexplained CEA rise after surgical curative resection for colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013; 28(12):1699-705. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-013-1747-0. View

4.
Hammond K, Margolin D . The role of postoperative surveillance in colorectal cancer. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2009; 20(3):249-54. PMC: 2789516. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-984869. View

5.
Caglar M, Yener C, Karabulut E . Value of CT, FDG PET-CT and serum tumor markers in staging recurrent colorectal cancer. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2014; 10(7):993-1002. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-014-1115-8. View