World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 36, Issue 8, pp 1898–1905 | Cite as

Diagnostic Value of FDG-PET/CT for Lymph Node Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer

  • Jae Young Kwak
  • Jae Seung Kim
  • Hye Jin Kim
  • Hyun Kwon Ha
  • Chang Sik Yu
  • Jin Cheon Kim
Article

Abstract

Background

Lymph node metastasis is an important prognostic factor in patients with colorectal cancer. We assessed the ability of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) to diagnose lymph node metastases in colorectal cancer patients.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 473 patients who underwent preoperative FDG-PET/CT, followed by curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Lymph node metastases were assessed as proximal or distal, depending on their anatomical location. We analyzed the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of FDG-PET/CT and CT for detecting lymph node metastases.

Results

In detecting proximal lymph nodes, FDG-PET/CT had a sensitivity of 66 %, a specificity of 60 %, a PPV of 63 %, an NPV of 62 %, and an accuracy of 63 %; whereas CT had a sensitivity of 87 %, a specificity of 29 %, a PPV of 57 %, an NPV of 68 %, and an accuracy of 59 % (P = 0.245). FDG-PET/CT and CT also showed similar accuracy in detecting distal lymph nodes (87 vs. 88 %, P = 0.620).

Conclusion

Preoperative FDG-PET/CT and CT have comparable accuracy in detecting lymph node metastases of colorectal cancer.

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen AM, Tremiterra S, Candela F et al (1991) Prognosis of node-positive colon cancer. Cancer 67:1859–1861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Dwyer ST, Haboubi NY, Johnson JS et al (2001) Detection of lymph node metastases in colorectal carcinoma. Colorectal Dis 3:288–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ et al (2004) Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology 232:773–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heriot AG, Grundy A, Kumar D (1999) Preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 86:17–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shin SS, Jeong YY, Min JJ et al (2008) Preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: CT versus integrated FDG PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 33:270–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park IJ, Kim HC, Yu CS et al (2006) Efficacy of PET/CT in the accurate evaluation of primary colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 32:941–947PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erturk SM, Ichikawa T, Fujii H et al (2006) PET imaging for evaluation of metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver. Eur J Radiol 58:229–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdel-Nabi H, Doerr RJ, Lamonica DM et al (1998) Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: correlation with histopathologic and CT findings. Radiology 206:755–760PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O et al (2003) Routine [18]F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 44:1784–1788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L et al (2003) Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 44:1200–1209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ell PJ (2006) The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol 79:32–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J et al (2003) Direct comparison of [18]F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44:1797–1803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P et al (2004) Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 240:1027–1034 discussion 1035–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (2006) Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma. Kanehara, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Antoch G, Saoudi N, Kuehl H et al (2004) Accuracy of whole-body dual-modality fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for tumor staging in solid tumors: comparison with CT and PET. J Clin Oncol 22:4357–4368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J (2010) Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 257:674–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Avril N (2004) GLUT1 expression in tissue and [18]F-FDG uptake. J Nucl Med 45:930–932PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Inoue K, Sato T, Kitamura H et al (2008) Improvement of the diagnostic accuracy of lymph node metastases of colorectal cancer in 18F-FDG-PET/CT by optimizing the iteration number for the image reconstruction. Ann Nucl Med 22:465–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dukes CE, Bussey HJ (1958) The spread of rectal cancer and its effect on prognosis. Br J Cancer 12:309–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hermanek P, Altendorf A (1981) Classification of colorectal carcinomas with regional lymphatic metastases. Pathol Res Pract 173:1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim JS, Sohn DK, Park JW et al (2011) Prognostic significance of distribution of lymph node metastasis in advanced mid or low rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 104:486–492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sugihara K, Kobayashi H, Kato T et al (2006) Indication and benefit of pelvic sidewall dissection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1663–1672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Matteo G, Mascagni D, Tarroni D (1991) Radical surgery for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol Suppl 2:32–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leggeri A, Roseano M, Balani A et al (1994) Lumboaortic and iliac lymphadenectomy: what is the role today? Dis Colon Rectum 37:S54–S61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hojo K, Sawada T, Moriya Y (1989) An analysis of survival and voiding, sexual function after wide iliopelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with carcinoma of the rectum, compared with conventional lymphadenectomy. Dis Colon Rectum 32:128–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW (2007) PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 242:360–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fong Y, Saldinger PF, Akhurst T et al (1999) Utility of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning on selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Am J Surg 178:282–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Desai DC, Zervos EE, Arnold MW et al (2003) Positron emission tomography affects surgical management in recurrent colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 10:59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Truant S, Huglo D, Hebbar M et al (2005) Prospective evaluation of the impact of [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography of resectable colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 92:362–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF et al (2003) Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med 348:2500–2507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E et al (1999) Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:894–901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chowdhury FU, Shah N, Scarsbrook AF et al (2010) [18F]FDG PET/CT imaging of colorectal cancer: a pictorial review. Postgrad Med J 86:174–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wong JH, Severino R, Honnebier MB et al (1999) Number of nodes examined and staging accuracy in colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 17:2896–2900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Goldstein NS (2002) Lymph node recoveries from 2427 pT3 colorectal resection specimens spanning 45 years: recommendations for a minimum number of recovered lymph nodes based on predictive probabilities. Am J Surg Pathol 26:179–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Le Voyer TE, Sigurdson ER, Hanlon AL et al (2003) Colon cancer survival is associated with increasing number of lymph nodes analyzed: a secondary survey of intergroup trial INT-0089. J Clin Oncol 21:2912–2919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pusztaszeri M, Matter M, Kuonen A et al (2009) Nodal staging in colorectal cancer: should distant lymph nodes be recovered in surgical specimens? Hum Pathol 40:552–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith NJ, Bees N, Barbachano Y et al (2007) Preoperative computed tomography staging of nonmetastatic colon cancer predicts outcome: implications for clinical trials. Br J Cancer 96:1030–1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    McDaniel KP, Charnsangavej C, DuBrow RA et al (1993) Pathways of nodal metastasis in carcinomas of the cecum, ascending colon, and transverse colon: CT demonstration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 161:61–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Granfield CA, Charnsangavej C, Dubrow RA et al (1992) Regional lymph node metastases in carcinoma of the left side of the colon and rectum: CT demonstration. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:757–761PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pomerri F, Maretto I, Pucciarelli S et al (2009) Prediction of rectal lymph node metastasis by pelvic computed tomography measurement. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:168–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dighe S, Swift I, Brown G (2008) CT staging of colon cancer. Clin Radiol 63:1372–1379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Adams MC, Turkington TG, Wilson JM et al (2010) A systematic review of the factors affecting accuracy of SUV measurements. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:310–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jae Young Kwak
    • 1
  • Jae Seung Kim
    • 2
  • Hye Jin Kim
    • 3
  • Hyun Kwon Ha
    • 3
  • Chang Sik Yu
    • 1
  • Jin Cheon Kim
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Colon and Rectal SurgeryUniversity of Ulsan College of Medicine, and Asan Medical CenterSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity of Ulsan College of Medicine, and Asan Medical CenterSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Ulsan College of Medicine, and Asan Medical CenterSeoulKorea
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations