Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

18F-FDG PET/CT in peritoneal tumors: a pictorial review

  • Expert Review
  • Published:
Clinical and Translational Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pathologic involvement of the peritoneum can result from a wide range of conditions, including both non-neoplastic and neoplastic diseases. In the latter case, the peritoneum can be affected by primary tumors and, more commonly, secondary pathologic implants. In this heterogeneous spectrum of diseases, morphological imaging, especially computed tomography (CT), is the method of choice in detecting peritoneal implants as well as treatment response evaluation. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) is a reference technique in the oncological field and to date can be considered as a useful tool in the evaluation of peritoneal involvement. The purpose of this review is to describe the main 18F-FDG PET/CT features of peritoneal malignancies, to assess the potential use of 18F-FDG PET/CT for this disease and help in images evaluation.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Desai JP, Moustarah F (2022) Peritoneal metastasis. Statpearls, Tampa

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pickhardt PJ, Perez AA, Elmohr MM, Elsayes KM (2021) CT imaging review of uncommon peritoneal-based neoplasms: beyond carcinomatosis. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/BJR.20201288

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Casali M, Lauri C, Altini C, Bertagna F, Cassarino G, Cistaro A, Paola Erba A, Ferrari C, Gabriele Mainolfi C, Palucci A et al (2021) State of the art of 18F-FDG PET/CT application in inflammation and infection: a guide for image acquisition and interpretation. Clin Transl Imaging 9:299–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-021-00445-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Altini C, Asabella AN, Lavelli V, Bianco G, Ungaro A, Pisani A, Merenda N, Ferrari C, Rubini G (2019) Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in comparison with CECT for whole-body assessment of patients with esophageal cancer. Recenti Prog Med 110:144–150. https://doi.org/10.1701/3132.31142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM (2003) Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 44:1407–1412

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van’t Sant I, Engbersen MP, Bhairosing PA, Lambregts DMJ, Beets-Tan RGH, van Driel WJ, Aalbers AGJ, Kok NFM, Lahaye MJ (2020) Diagnostic performance of imaging for the detection of peritoneal metastases: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 30:3101–3112. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00330-019-06524-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ct FPET, Ichikawa T (2011) Diagnosis of Peritoneal dissemination : comparison. Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hotta M, Minamimoto R, Gohda Y, Igari T, Yano H (2019) Impact of a modified peritoneal cancer index using FDG-PET/CT (PET-PCI) in predicting tumor grade and progression-free survival in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei. Eur Radiol 29:5709–5716. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00330-019-06102-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sun C-F, Tan Z-H, Shen C, Mao X-Y, Ge C-C, Gao Y, Hu C-H (2020) Distribution characteristics of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis based on the positron emission tomography/peritoneal cancer index. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 00:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2020.3733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Elekonawo FMK, Starremans B, Laurens ST, Bremers AJA, de Wilt JHW, Heijmen L, de Geus-Oei LF (2020) Can [18F]F-FDG PET/CT be used to assess the pre-operative extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with colorectal cancer? Abdom Radiol (New York) 45:301–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00261-019-02268-W

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SJ, Lee SW (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/BJR.20170519

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Martínez RS, Dromain C, Violi NV (2021) Imaging of gastric carcinomatosis. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM10225294

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jónsdóttir B, Ripoll MA, Bergman A, Silins I, Poromaa IS, Ahlström H, Stålberg K (2021) Validation of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI for estimating the extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis in ovarian and endometrial cancer -a pilot study. Cancer Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1186/S40644-021-00399-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Violi NV, Gavane S, Argiriadi P, Law A, Heiba S, Bekhor EY (2022) FDG-PET/MRI for the preoperative diagnosis and staging of peritoneal carcinomatosis : a prospective multireader pilot study. Abdom Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03703-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brandl A, Westbrook S, Nunn S, Arbuthnot-Smith E, Mulsow J, Youssef H, Carr N, Tzivanakis A, Dayal S, Mohamed F et al (2020) Clinical and surgical outcomes of patients with peritoneal mesothelioma discussed at a monthly national multidisciplinary team video-conference meeting. BJS open 4:260–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/BJS5.50256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Yan TD, Haveric N, Carmignani CP, Bromley CM, Sugarbaker PH (2005) Computed tomographic characterization of malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. Tumori 91:394–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/030089160509100503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dubreuil J, Giammarile F, Rousset P, Rubello D, Bakrin N, Passot G, Isaac S, Glehen O, Skanjeti A (2017) The role of 18F-FDG-PET/ceCT in peritoneal mesothelioma. Nucl Med Commun 38:312–318. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wasnik AP, Maturen KE, Kaza RK, Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR (2015) Primary and secondary disease of the peritoneum and mesentery: review of anatomy and imaging features. Abdom Imaging 40:626–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0232-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boussios S, Moschetta M, Karathanasi A, Tsiouris AK, Kanellos FS, Tatsi K, Katsanos KH, Christodoulou DK (2018) Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: clinical aspects, and therapeutic perspectives. Ann Gastroenterol 31:659–669. https://doi.org/10.20524/AOG.2018.0305

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Feng Z, Liu S, Ju X, Chen X, Li R, Bi R, Wu X (2021) Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for peritoneal metastases in advanced ovarian cancer. Quant Imaging Med Surg 11:3392–3398. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-784

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Funicelli L, Travaini LL, Landoni F, Trifirò G, Bonello L, Bellomi M (2010) Peritoneal carcinomatosis from ovarian cancer: the role of CT and [18F]FDG-PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 35:701–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00261-009-9578-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. An H, Lee EYP, Chiu K, Chang C (2018) The emerging roles of functional imaging in ovarian cancer with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Clin Radiol 73:597–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRAD.2018.03.009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rubini G, Altini C, Notaristefano A, Merenda N, Rubini D, Ianora AAS, Asabella AN (2014) Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in diagnosing peritoneal carcinomatosis in the restaging of patient with ovarian cancer as compared to contrast enhanced CT and tumor marker Ca-125. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 33:22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REMN.2013.06.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delgado Bolton RC, Aide N, Colletti PM, Ferrero A, Paez D, Skanjeti A, Giammarile F (2021) EANM guideline on the role of 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT in diagnosis, staging, prognostic value, therapy assessment and restaging of ovarian cancer, endorsed by the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:3286–3302. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00259-021-05450-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Xue B, Jiang J, Chen L, Wu S, Zheng X, Zheng X, Tang K (2021) Development and validation of a radiomics model based on 18 f-fdg pet of primary gastric cancer for predicting peritoneal metastasis. Front Oncol. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2021.740111

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Soussan M, Des Guetz G, Barrau V, Aflalo-Hazan V, Pop G, Mehanna Z, Rust E, Aparicio T, Douard R, Benamouzig R et al (2012) Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and MR with diffusion-weighted imaging for assessing peritoneal carcinomatosis from gastrointestinal malignancy. Eur Radiol 22:1479–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00330-012-2397-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuten J, Levine C, Shamni O, Pelles S, Wolf I, Lahat G, Mishani E, Sapir EE (2022) Head-to-head comparison of­[68 Ga ] Ga-FAPI-04 and­[18 F ]-FDG PET/CT in evaluating the extent of disease in gastric adenocarcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05494-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sim SH, Kim YJ, Oh DY, Lee SH, Kim DW, Kang WJ, Im SA, Kim TY, Kim WH, Heo DS et al (2009) The role of PET/CT in detection of gastric cancer recurrence. BMC Cancer 9:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang S, Wang W, Xu T, Ding H, Li Y (2022) Comparison of diagnostic effi cacy of [68 Ga ] Ga-FAPI-04 and [18 F] FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of gastric cancer. Front Oncol 12:1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.925100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhao L, Pang Y, Luo Z, Fu K, Yang T, Zhao L, Sun L, Wu H (2021) Role of [68 Ga ] Ga-DOTA-FAPI-04 PET/CT in the evaluation of peritoneal carcinomatosis and comparison with [18 F ] -FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:1944–1955

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fu L, Huang S, Wu H, Dong Y, Xie F, Wu R, Zhou K, Tang G (2022) Superiority of [68 Ga ] Ga-FAPI-04 /[18 F ] FAPI-42 PET/CT to [18 F ] FDG PET/CT in delineating the primary tumor and peritoneal metastasis in initial gastric cancer. Eur Radiol 9:6281–6290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Audollent R, Eveno C, Dohan A, Sarda L, Jouvin I, Soyer P, Pocard M (2015) Pitfalls and mimickers on (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal cancer: an analysis from 37 patients. J Visc Surg 152:285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVISCSURG.2015.06.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liberale G, Lecocq C, Garcia C, Muylle K, Covas A, Deleporte A, Hendlisz A, Bouazza F, El Nakadi I, Flamen P (2017) Accuracy of FDG-PET/CT in colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis: potential tool for evaluation of chemotherapeutic response. Anticancer Res 37:929–934. https://doi.org/10.21873/ANTICANRES.11401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Filippi L, Arienzo MD, Scopinaro F, Salvatori R (2013) Usefulness of dual-time point imaging after carbonated water for the fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission imaging of peritoneal carcinomatosis in colon cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2012.1179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zade A, Purandare N, Rangarajan V, Shah S, Agarwal A, Kulkarni M, Jha AK (2012) Role of delayed imaging to differentiate intense physiological F FDG uptake from peritoneal deposits in patients presenting with intestinal obstruction. Clin Nuclea Med 37:783–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ariake K, Motoi F, Shimomura H, Mizuma M, Maeda S, Terao C, Tatewaki Y, Ohtsuka H, Fukase K, Masuda K et al (2018) 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography predicts recurrence in resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 22:279–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11605-017-3627-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Panagiotidis E, Datseris IE, Exarhos D, Skilakaki M, Skoura E, Bamias A (2012) High incidence of peritoneal implants in recurrence of intra-abdominal cancer revealed by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with increased tumor markers and negative findings on conventional imaging. Nucl Med Commun 33:431–438. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283506ae1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dubreuil J, Giammarile F, Rousset P, Rubello D, Colletti PM, Glehen O, Skanjeti A (2017) 18F-FDG-PET/CT of peritoneal tumors: a pictorial essay. Nucl Med Commun 38:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yantiss RK, Shia J, Klimstra DS, Hahn HP, Odze RD, Misdraji J (2009) Prognostic significance of localized extra-appendiceal mucin deposition in appendiceal mucinous neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol 33:248–255. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817ec31e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dubreuil J, Giammarile F, Rousset P, Bakrin N, Passot G, Isaac S, Glehen O, Skanjeti A (2016) FDG-PET/ceCT is useful to predict recurrence of Pseudomyxoma peritonei. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:1630–1637. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00259-016-3347-Z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Passot G, Glehen O, Pellet O, Isaac S, Tychyj C, Mohamed F, Giammarile F, Gilly FN, Cotte E (2010) Pseudomyxoma Peritonei: Role of 18F-FDG PET in preoperative evaluation of pathological grade and potential for complete cytoreduction. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2009.09.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Puranik AD, Purandare NC, Agrawal A, Shah S, Rangarajan V (2014) Imaging spectrum of peritoneal carcinomatosis on FDG PET/CT. Jpn J Radiol 32:571–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11604-014-0346-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Benameur Y, Touil S, Sahel OA, Oueriagli SN, Biyi A, Doudouh A (2020) Peritoneal super scan on 18F-FDG PET/CT in two patients with lymphoma. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol 8:149. https://doi.org/10.22038/AOJNMB.2020.44276.1296

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors declare no acknowledgment.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Nuclear Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124, Bari, Italy

    Corinna Altini, Alessia Branca, Antonio Rosario Pisani, Dino Rubini & Giuseppe Rubini

  2. DSMBNOS, Section of Radiodiagnostic, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124, Bari, Italy

    Nicola Maggialetti

  3. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124, Bari, Italy

    Angela Sardaro

  4. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Diagnostic Imaging, University Hospital Policlinico of Bari Medical School, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Amato Stabile Ianora

Authors
  1. Corinna Altini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicola Maggialetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessia Branca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonio Rosario Pisani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dino Rubini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Angela Sardaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antonio Amato Stabile Ianora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giuseppe Rubini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CA and NM contributed to the study conception and design. The first draft of the manuscript was written by AB and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by ARP, DR and AS. AASI and GR read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Rosario Pisani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in all figures.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Altini, C., Maggialetti, N., Branca, A. et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in peritoneal tumors: a pictorial review. Clin Transl Imaging 11, 141–155 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-022-00534-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-022-00534-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation