World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 1035–1039

Fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography in Adenocarcinomas of the Distal Esophagus and Cardia

  • Katja Ott
  • Wolfgang A. Weber
  • Ulrich Fink
  • Hermann Helmberger
  • Karen Becker
  • Hubert J. Stein
  • James Müller
  • Markus Schwaiger
  • Jörg Rüdiger Siewert
World Progress in Surgery

DOI: 10.1007/s00268-003-7058-9

Cite this article as:
Ott, K., Weber, W., Fink, U. et al. World J. Surg. (2003) 27: 1035. doi:10.1007/s00268-003-7058-9

Abstract

Adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) are now recognized as a separate tumor entity with increasing incidence. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether positron emission tomography (PET) using the glucose analog F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) can be used for metabolic characterization of this tumor type. Fifty-two patients with histologically proven, locally advanced AEG (distal esophagus, type I: n = 31; cardia, type II: n = 21) were studied by FDG-PET. None of the tumors had been previously treated. Findings of endoscopy (growth type), endoluminal ultrasound (uT, uN), computed tomography (cN, cranio-caudal extent, tumor thickness), histological evaluation (Lauren classification, tumor grade), anatomical classification, and survival were correlated with the results of FDG-PET. There was no correlation between FDG uptake and clinical stage, grade, Lauren classification, or survival. All AEG I tumors were visualized by FDG-PET with high contrast, whereas FDG uptake by five AEG II tumors (24%) did not differ from background activity. In a quantitative analysis, mean FDG uptake of AEG I tumors was 1.6 times higher than that of AEG II tumors (p = 0.0005). PET can be used to visualize type I adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG I). In AEG II tumors, however, the use of FDG-PET appears to be limited. The significantly higher FDG uptake of AEG I tumors compared to AEG II tumors suggests that these two tumor types differ in glucose utilization. This finding strengthens the hypothesis that AEG I and AEG II are two different tumor entities.

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katja Ott
    • 1
  • Wolfgang A. Weber
    • 2
  • Ulrich Fink
    • 1
  • Hermann Helmberger
    • 3
  • Karen Becker
    • 4
  • Hubert J. Stein
    • 1
  • James Müller
    • 4
  • Markus Schwaiger
    • 2
  • Jörg Rüdiger Siewert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of Pathology, Klinikum Rechts der IsarTechnical University MunichMunichGermany