Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incremental diagnostic utility of gastric distension FDG PET/CT

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the diagnostic utility of gastric distension (GD) FDG PET/CT in both patients with known gastric malignancy and those not known to have gastric malignancy but with incidental focal FDG uptake in the stomach.

Methods

This retrospective analysis included 88 patients who underwent FDG PET/CT following GD with hyoscine N-butylbromide (Buscopan®) and water ingestion as part of routine clinical evaluation between 2004 and 2014. FDG PET/CT scans before and after GD were reported blinded to the patient clinical details in 49 patients undergoing pretreatment staging of gastric malignancy and 39 patients who underwent GD following incidental suspicious gastric uptake. The PET findings were validated by a composite clinical standard.

Results

In the 49 patients undergoing pretreatment staging of gastric malignancy, GD improved PET detection of the primary tumour (from 80 % to 90 %). PET evaluation of tumour extent was concordant with endoscopic/surgical reports in 31 % (interpreter 1) and 45 % (interpreter 2) using pre-GD images and 73 % and 76 % using GD images. Interobserver agreement also improved with GD (κ = 0.29 to 0.69). Metabolic and morphological quantitative analysis demonstrated a major impact of GD in normal gastric wall but no significant effect in tumour, except a minor increase in SUV related to a delayed acquisition time. The tumour to normal stomach SUVmax ratio increased from 3.8 ± 2.9 to 9.2 ± 8.6 (mean ± SD) with GD (p < 0.0001), facilitating detection and improved assessment of the primary tumour. In 25 (64 %) of the 39 patients with incidental suspicious gastric uptake, acquisition after GD correctly excluded a malignant process. In 10 (71 %) of the remaining 14 patients with persistent suspicious FDG uptake despite GD, malignancy was confirmed and in 3 (21 %) an active but benign pathology was diagnosed.

Conclusion

GD is a simple way to improve local staging with FDG PET in patients with gastric malignancy. In the setting of incidental suspicious gastric uptake, GD is also an effective tool for ruling out malignancy and leads to the avoidance of unnecessary endoscopy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(14):2137–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Woo SK, Kim S, Kim TU, Lee JW, Kim GH, Choi KU, et al. Investigation of the association between CT detection of early gastric cancer and ultimate histology. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(11):1236–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kiff RS, Taylor BA. Comparison of computed tomography, endosonography, and intraoperative assessment in TN staging of gastric carcinoma. Gut. 1994;35(2):287–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen J, Cheong JH, Yun MJ, Kim J, Lim JS, Hyung WJ, et al. Improvement in preoperative staging of gastric adenocarcinoma with positron emission tomography. Cancer. 2005;103(11):2383–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Li B, Zheng P, Zhu Q, Lin J. Accurate preoperative staging of gastric cancer with combined endoscopic ultrasonography and PET-CT. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2012;228(1):9–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Youn SH, Seo KW, Lee SH, Shin YM, Yoon KY. 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography: computed tomography for preoperative staging in gastric cancer patients. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12(3):179–86.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ha TK, Choi YY, Song SY, Kwon SJ. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography and computed tomography is not accurate in preoperative staging of gastric cancer. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011;81(2):104–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kamimura K, Nagamachi S, Wakamatsu H, Fujita S, Nishii R, Umemura Y, et al. Role of gastric distention with additional water in differentiating locally advanced gastric carcinomas from physiological uptake in the stomach on 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET. Nucl Med Commun. 2009;30(6):431–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wu CX, Zhu ZH. Diagnosis and evaluation of gastric cancer by positron emission tomography. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(16):4574–85.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shimada H, Okazumi S, Koyama M, Murakami K. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association Task Force for Research Promotion: clinical utility of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in gastric cancer. A systematic review of the literature. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(1):13–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koga H, Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, Hiraka K, Nakagawa M, Abe K, et al. An analysis of the physiological FDG uptake pattern in the stomach. Ann Nucl Med. 2003;17(8):733–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Salaun PY, Grewal RK, Dodamane I, Yeung HW, Larson SM, Strauss HW. An analysis of the 18F-FDG uptake pattern in the stomach. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(1):48–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhu Z, Li F, Mao Y, Cheng W, Cheng X, Dang Y. Improving evaluation of primary gastric malignancies by distending the stomach with milk immediately before 18F-FDG PET scanning. J Nucl Med Technol. 2008;36(1):25–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cristescu R, Lee J, Nebozhyn M, Kim KM, Ting JC, Wong SS, et al. Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes. Nat Med. 2015;21(5):449–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaneko Y, Murray WK, Link E, Hicks RJ, Duong C. Improving patient selection for 18F-FDG PET scanning in the staging of gastric cancer. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(4):523–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kamimura K, Fujita S, Nishii R, Wakamatsu H, Nagamachi S, Yano T, et al. An analysis of the physiological FDG uptake in the stomach with the water gastric distention method. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(11):1815–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, Iishi H, Tanabe S, Oyama T, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2006;9(4):262–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Okines A, Verheij M, Allum W, Cunningham D, Cervantes A; ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Gastric cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2010;21 Suppl 5:v50–4.

  19. Mukai K, Ishida Y, Okajima K, Isozaki H, Morimoto T, Nishiyama S. Usefulness of preoperative FDG-PET for detection of gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2006;9(3):192–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee SJ, Lee WW, Yoon HJ, Lee HY, Lee KH, Kim YH, et al. Regional PET/CT after water gastric inflation for evaluating loco-regional disease of gastric cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82(6):935–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yun M, Choi HS, Yoo E, Bong JK, Ryu YH, Lee JD. The role of gastric distention in differentiating recurrent tumor from physiologic uptake in the remnant stomach on 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):953–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mocellin S, Marchet A, Nitti D. EUS for the staging of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1122–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ott K, Fink U, Becker K, Stahl A, Dittler HJ, Busch R, et al. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(24):4604–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abgral R, Le Roux PY, Rousset J, Querellou S, Valette G, Nowak E, et al. Prognostic value of dual-time-point 18F-FDG PET-CT imaging in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nucl Med Commun. 2013;34(6):551–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhuang H, Pourdehnad M, Lambright ES, Yamamoto AJ, Lanuti M, Li P, et al. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(9):1412–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wagner J, Aron DC. Incidentalomas: a “disease” of modern imaging technology. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;26(1):3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hicks RJ. The customer is always right, even when you are justifiably wrong. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(12):1923–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang G, Lau EW, Shakher R, Rischin D, Ware RE, Hong E, et al. How do oncologists deal with incidental abnormalities on whole-body fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT? Cancer. 2007;109(1):117–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Elizabeth Drummond and Annette Hogg for developing and maintaining the PET database.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Division of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging, East Melbourne, Australia

    Pierre-Yves Le Roux, Bimal K. Parameswaran, Jason Callahan & Rodney J. Hicks

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Brest University Hospital, EA3878 (GETBO) IFR 148, Brest, France

    Pierre-Yves Le Roux

  3. Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 7 St. Andrews Place, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia

    Cuong P. Duong & Carlos S. Cabalag

  4. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

    Rodney J. Hicks

Authors
  1. Pierre-Yves Le Roux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cuong P. Duong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos S. Cabalag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bimal K. Parameswaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jason Callahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rodney J. Hicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre-Yves Le Roux.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Pierre-Yves Le Roux has received funding from the France-Australia Science Innovation Collaboration (FASIC) programme.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The requirement to obtain informed consent for this retrospective study was waived by the PMCC Ethics Committee (trial 14_151R).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le Roux, PY., Duong, C.P., Cabalag, C.S. et al. Incremental diagnostic utility of gastric distension FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43, 644–653 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3211-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3211-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation