Non-enhanced CT versus contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for nodal staging of rectal cancer

  • Ukihide TateishiEmail author
  • Tetsuo Maeda
  • Tsuyoshi Morimoto
  • Mototaka Miyake
  • Yasuaki Arai
  • E. Edmund Kim
Original Article



The purpose of the present study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of non-enhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT in integrated PET/CT studies for preoperative nodal staging of rectal cancer.


Retrospective analysis was performed in 53 patients with pathologically proven rectal cancer who had been referred for preoperative staging. All patients underwent integrated PET/CT consisting of non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced CT followed by whole-body fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) PET. Both non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced PET/CT images were evaluated separately by two observers in consensus. The reference standard was histopathologic results. For nodal staging of rectal cancer, we compared diagnostic accuracy on a per-patient basis between the two modalities.


Nodal staging was correctly determined with non-enhanced studies in 37 patients (70%) and with contrast-enhanced studies in 42 patients (79%). On a per-patient basis, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of regional lymph node staging were 85%, 68%, 83%, 72%, and 79%, respectively, with contrast-enhanced studies, and 85%, 42%, 73%, 62%, and 70%, respectively, with non-enhanced studies. The difference in the accuracy of nodal staging between the two modalities was not significant (p = 0.063). Compared with non-enhanced studies, contrast-enhanced studies determined more correctly the status of pararectal lymph nodes (p = 0.002), internal iliac lymph nodes (p = 0.004), and obturator lymph nodes (p < 0.0001).


Contrast-enhanced PET/CT is superior to non-enhanced PET/CT for precise definition of regional nodal status in rectal cancer.


PET/CT Rectal Cancer Stage 



This work was supported in part by grants from Scientific Research Expenses for Health and Welfare Programs and the Grant-in-Aid for Cancer Research from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.


  1. 1.
    Chiappa A, Biffi R, Bertani E, Zbar AP, Pace U, Crotti C, et al. Surgical outcomes after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2006;94:182–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strauss LG, Clorius JH, Schlag P, Lehner B, Kimmig B, Engenhart R, et al. Recurrence of colorectal tumors: PET evaluation. Radiology 1989;170:329–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schiepers C, Penninckx F, De Vadder N, Merckx E, Mortelmans L, Bormans G, et al. Contribution of PET in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Surg Oncol 1995;21:517–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehadashti F, Siegel BA, Trask DD, Birnbaum EH, et al. Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:613–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delbeke D, Vitola JV, Sandler MP, Arildsen RC, Powers TA, Wright JK Jr, et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1196–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E, Dupont P, Bormans G, De Vadder N, et al. Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:894–901.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Valk PE, Abella-Columna E, Haseman MK, Pounds TR, Tesar RD, Myers RW, et al. Whole-body PET imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Arch Surg 1999;134:503–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staib L, Schirrmeister H, Reske SN, Beger HG. Is 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? Am J Surg 2000;180:1–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, Silverman DH, Coleman RE, Phelps ME. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2000;42:1s–93s.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, McCormack L, Kadry Z, Clavien PA. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004;240:1027–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lejeune C, Bismuth MJ, Conroy T, Zanni C, Bey P, Bedenne L, et al. Use of a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET in the management of metachronous liver metastases of colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2005;46:2020–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiering B, Krabbe PF, Jager GJ, Oyen WJ, Ruers TJ. The impact of fluor-18-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases. Cancer 2005;104:2658–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bipat S, van Leeuwen MS, Comans EF, Pijl ME, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH, et al. Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis—meta-analysis. Radiology 2005;237:23–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erturk SM, Ichikawa T, Fujii H, Yasuda S, Ros PR. PET imaging for evaluation of metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:229–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Amthauer H, Denecke T, Rau B, Hildebrandt B, Hunerbein M, Ruf J, et al. Response prediction by FDG-PET after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and combined regional hyperthermia of rectal cancer: correlation with endorectal ultrasound and histopathology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:811–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O, Visokai V, Trubac M, Schneiderova M. Routine 18F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1784–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chin BB, Wahl RL. 18F-Fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of gastrointestinal malignancies. Gut 2003;52 suppl:iv23–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H, Gutman M, Levine C, Rabau M, et al. Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 2004;232:815–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Votrubova J, Belohlavek O, Jaruskova M, Oliverius M, Lohynska R, Trskova K, et al. The role of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:779–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1797–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Delbeke D, Martin WH. PET and PET-CT for evaluation of colorectal carcinoma. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:209–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wahl RL. Why nearly all PET of abdominal and pelvic cancers will be performed as PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2004;45 suppl:82S–95S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gearhart SL, Frassica D, Rosen R, Choti M, Schulick R, Wahl R. Improved staging with pretreatment positron emission tomography/computed tomography in low rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:397–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Veit P, Kuhle C, Beyer T, Kuehl H, Herborn CU, Borsch G, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) tumour staging with integrated PET/CT colonography: technical feasibility and first experiences in patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 2006;55:68–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF, Ogunbiyi OA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:759–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strauss LG. Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose and false-positive results: a major problem in the diagnostics of oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:1409–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miraldi F, Vesselle F, Faulhaber PF, Adler LP, Leisure GP. Elimination of artifactual accumulation of FDG in PET imaging of colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1998;23:3–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leisure GP, Vesselle HJ, Faulhaber PF, O’Donnell JK, Adler LP, Miraldi F. Technical improvements in fluorine-18-FDG PET imaging of the abdomen and pelvis. J Nucl Med Technol 1997;25:115–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Engel H, Steinert H, Buck A, Berthold T, Boni RAH, von Schulthess GK. Whole-body PET: physiological and artifactual fluorodeoxyglucose accumulations. J Nucl Med 1996;37:441–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cook GJR, Fogelman I, Maisey MN. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning: potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med 1996;7:441–6.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mawlawi O, Erasmus JJ, Munden RF, Pan T, Knight AE, Macapinlac HA, et al. Quantifying the effect of IV contrast media on integrated PET/CT: clinical evaluation. AJR Am J Roentogenol 2006;186:308–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ukihide Tateishi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tetsuo Maeda
    • 1
  • Tsuyoshi Morimoto
    • 1
  • Mototaka Miyake
    • 1
  • Yasuaki Arai
    • 1
  • E. Edmund Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Diagnostic RadiologyNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Division of Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations