Comparison between 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer.

Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, Ahmanson Biological Imaging Center, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90095-6942, USA.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.56). 04/2005; 46(4):587-95.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare PET with (18)F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion of independently acquired CT and PET scans for staging of recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC).
Fifty-one patients with suspected recurrent CRC were studied with in-line PET/CT. Thirty-four of these patients underwent an additional CT scan of the chest or abdomen within 4 wk of PET/CT. Software fusion of PET and CT was performed using a fully automated, intensity-based algorithm. The accuracy of the coregistration of PET and CT scans was evaluated by measuring the distance between landmarks visible in the PET and CT images. Histologic evaluation and follow-up for 6 mo served as the gold standard for the presence or absence of recurrent CRC.
On a patient basis, the accuracy of staging was significantly higher for in-line PET/CT than for PET (88% vs. 71%, P = 0.01). Software fusion of the independently acquired PET and CT images was unsuccessful in 8 patients (24%). In the remaining patients, the mean distance between 62 landmarks visible in PET and CT was 12.9 +/- 7.9 mm, whereas it was only 7.7 +/- 4.7 mm for in-line PET/CT (P < 0.001).
In patients with suspected recurrent CRC, in-line PET/CT significantly improves staging compared with PET alone. Due to its high failure rate, software fusion of independently acquired PET and CT studies cannot be considered to represent an alternative to in-line PET/CT.

Download full-text


Available from: Barbara Füger, Jul 09, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Modern imaging techniques have an important role in the diagnostic procedures of malignancies, and assessing response to therapy. The 18F-FDG PET/CT revolutionized the evaluation of colorectal cancer in terms of preoperative staging and monitoring of recurrence. Conventional imaging techniques have limitations in early assessment of response to therapy. 18F-FDG PET has been shown to allow earlier treatment monitoring, because the metabolic change appears before any anatomic change occurs. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) are widely applied, but they have some limitations. There are new international guidelines for treatment response assessment using PET/CT in solid tumours. The authors review indications and the role of hybrid PET/CT in colorectal cancer. Orv. Hetil., 2013, 154, 1447-1453.
    Orvosi Hetilap 09/2013; 154(37):1447-53. DOI:10.1556/OH.2013.29700
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Integrated Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) is an imaging technique that was introduced in clinical practice in 1998. PET/CT is the combination of two different examination techniques in one machine: Computed Tomography (CT) giving anatomic information and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) giving metabolic information. PET/CT has two major advantages: CT can be used for attenuation correction and PET/CT improves diagnostic accuracy when compared to CT and PET alone.The quality of PET/CT images depends on different parameters such as CT dose, patient respiration, and the use of intravenous (i.v.) and per oral (PO) contrast. A rapidly expanding amount of literature demonstrates the additional value of PET/CT in the diagnosis, staging, prognosis, treatment planning, assessment of treatment response and diagnosis of recurrence of many tumor types. CT increases the sensitivity of the PET/CT examination, but the most beneficial effect of having the CT data is the increase of the specificity of the PET data. PET data also helps to specify CT information.The utility of PET/CT for tumor staging, which is one of the major imaging study indication, seems to be very high, and therefore PET/CT may become the scanner of the future. Till this moment there are no many published studies about the cost-effectiveness of PET/CT. The integration of PET/CT in clinical practice will result in higher equipment running costs, but these costs are likely not to be prohibitive to the diffusion of this combined technology.
    JBR-BTR: organe de la Société royale belge de radiologie (SRBR) = orgaan van de Koninklijke Belgische Vereniging voor Radiologie (KBVR) 92(1):13-9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of 2-[fluorine-18] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDG-PET) and computed tomography (CT) with PET/CT in the detection of liver metastases during tumour staging in patients suffering from colorectal carcinoma for the purposes of correct surgical planning and follow-up. A total of 467 patients underwent a PET/CT scan using an iodinated contrast medium. We compared images obtained by the single PET scan, the single CT scan and by the fusion of the two procedures (PET/CT). The final diagnosis was obtained by histological examination and/or by the follow-up of all patients, including those who did not undergo surgery or biopsy. The PET scan had 94.05% sensitivity, 91.60% specificity and 93.36% accuracy; the CT scan had 91.07% sensitivity, 95.42% specificity and 92.29% accuracy. The combined procedures (PET/CT) had the following values: sensitivity 97.92%, specificity 97.71% and accuracy 97.86%. This study indicates that PET/CT is very useful in staging and restaging patients suffering from colorectal cancer. It was particularly useful when recurrences could not be visualised either clinically or by imaging despite increasing tumour markers, as it guaranteed an earlier diagnosis. PET/CT not only provides high diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity, enabling modification of patient treatment, but it is also a unique, high-profile procedure that can produce cost savings.
    La radiologia medica 06/2009; 114(4):571-585. DOI:10.1007/s11547-009-0393-7 · 1.37 Impact Factor