Value of 18F-FDG PET in the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis
- 236 Downloads
Peritoneal carcinomatosis can be difficult to diagnose using computed tomography (CT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of 2-(fluorine 18) fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis.
We reviewed the CT and FDG PET radiological reports and clinical charts of 18 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis and 17 cancer patients without peritoneal carcinomatosis. We also assessed FDG PET scans from 20 healthy volunteers as a baseline study. The maximum standardised uptake values (SUVmax) over peritoneal lesions in cancer patients and over the area of most intense intestinal uptake in healthy volunteers and cancer patients without peritoneal carcinomatosis were measured.
The sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of combined FDG PET and CT were superior to those of CT alone for the detection of peritoneal lesions (sensitivity: 66.7% vs 22.2%, p<0.025; PPV: 92.3% vs 50.0%, p<0.05). The most frequent pattern of FDG uptake in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis was abnormally intense focal uptake near the abdominal wall. An SUVmax threshold of 5.1 produced a diagnostic accuracy of combined FDG PET and CT of 78%. The additional information provided by FDG PET allowed a more accurate diagnosis in 14 patients (40.0%), and led to alteration of the therapeutic strategy in five (14.3%) of the enrolled cancer patients.
We found that use of an intra-abdominal FDG uptake cut-off value for SUVmax of >5.1 assists in the diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis. FDG PET may play an important role in the clinical management of patients with suspected peritoneal carcinomatosis.
KeywordsFDG PET Peritoneal carcinomatosis
We thank Mr. T. Gibson for revising the text and Mr K. Hirono for his technical assistance.
- 1.Walkey MM, Friedman AC, Sohotra P, Radecki PD. CT manifestations of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Am J Roentgenol 1988;150:1035–1041Google Scholar
- 2.Ha HK, Jung JI, Lee MS, Choi BG, Lee MG, Kim YH, Kim PN, Auh YH. CT differentiation of tuberculous peritonitis and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:743–748Google Scholar
- 16.Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Macapinlac HA, Nunez RF, Sanchez AF, Larson SM. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: the role of FDG-PET. J Nucl Med 2000; Suppl abstr:S36Google Scholar
- 21.Shreve PD, Bui CDH. Normal variants in FDG-PET imaging. In: Wahl RL, ed. Principles and practice of positron emission tomography. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002:111–136Google Scholar
- 28.Saga T, Torizuka T, Ouchi Y, Nishizawa S, Yonekura Y, Ochi H, Miyama M, Shiomi S, Uno K, Konishi J, Torizuka K. Clinical usefulness and cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in the staging and follow up of patients with gynecological malignancies—an analysis based on multi-center survey. Radioisotopes 2003;52:11Google Scholar