FDG-PET/MRI in patients with pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer: first clinical experiences
- 63 Downloads
To determine the value of 18F-FDG-PET/MRI in the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic recurrence of rectal cancer.
Forty-four patients (16 women, 28 men) with a history of rectal cancer who received FDG-PET/MRI between June 2011 and February 2017 at our institution were retrospectively enrolled. Three patients received two FDG-PET/MRIs; thus a total of 47 examinations were included. Pelvic recurrence was confirmed either with histology (n = 27) or imaging follow-up (n = 17) (> 4 months). Two readers (one radiologist, one nuclear medicine physician) interpreted the images in consensus. Pelvic lesions were assessed regarding FDG uptake and morphology. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as accuracy of PET/MRI in detecting recurrence were determined.
In 47 FDG-PET/MRIs 30 suspicious pelvic lesions were identified, 29 of which were malignant. Two patients underwent resection and had histologically proven pelvic recurrence without showing suspicious findings on FDG-PET/MRI. Changes in management due to FDG-PET/MRI findings had been implemented in eight patients. Eighty per cent (16/20) of resected patients had histologically negative resection margins (R0), one patient had uncertain resection margins. Sensitivity of FDG-PET/MRI in detecting recurrence was 94%, specificity 94%, positive/negative predictive value and accuracy were 97%, 90% and 94%, respectively.
FDG-PET/MRI is a valuable tool in the diagnosis and staging of pelvic recurrence in patients with rectal cancer.
• Metabolic information obtained from PET coupled with excellent soft tissue contrast from MRI could facilitate detection of rectal cancer recurrence and assist in treatment planning.
• PET/MRI demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of local recurrence of rectal cancer
• PET/MRI led to alterations in management in 18.2% of patients.
KeywordsPositron-emission tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Rectal cancer Neoplasm Recurrence, local
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Verena Plodeck.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported at the RSNA 2017.
• diagnostic or prognostic study
• performed at one institution
- 9.Goldberg RM, Fleming TR, Tangen CL et al (1998) Surgery for recurrent colon cancer: strategies for identifying resectable recurrence and success rates after resection. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, and the Southwest Oncology Group. Ann Intern Med 129:27–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Berger K, Nicholson S, Dehdashti F, Siegel B (2000) FDG PET evaluation of mucinous neoplasms: correlation of FDG uptake with histopathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1005–1008Google Scholar
- 27.Imdahl A, Reinhardt MJ, Nitzsche EU et al (2000) Impact of 18F-FDG-positron emission tomography for decision making in colorectal cancer recurrences. Langenbecks Arch Surg 385:129–134Google Scholar