Performance of Integrated FDG-PET/Contrast-enhanced CT in the Diagnosis of Recurrent Pancreatic Cancer: Comparison with Integrated FDG-PET/Non-contrast-enhanced CT and Enhanced CT
- 279 Downloads
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/computed tomography (CT) with intravenous contrast for depiction of recurrent pancreatic cancer, compared with PET/non-enhanced CT and CT.
Forty-five patients previously treated for pancreatic cancer underwent PET/CT for suspected recurrence. Lesion status was determined on the basis of histopathology and radiological imaging follow-up.
Patient-based analysis showed that sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 91.7%, 95.2%, and 93.3%, respectively, whereas those of PET/non-enhanced CT were 83.3%, 90.5%, and 86.7%, respectively, and those of enhanced CT were 66.7%, 85.7%, and 75.6%, respectively. In 21 patients whom the final diagnosis was obtained from the histopathologic examination, those figures of PET/contrast-enhanced CT were 94.7%, 50.0%, and 90.4%, respectively. The sensitivity of PET/contrast-enhanced CT in detecting local recurrence, abdominal lymph node metastasis, and peritoneal dissemination were 83.3%, 87.5%, and 83.3%, respectively.
PET/contrast-enhanced CT is an accurate modality for assessing recurrence of pancreatic cancer.
Key wordsPancreatic cancer Recurrence 18F-FDG PET/CT
We thank Kennichi Kobayashi, Kouichi Asano, Kazufumi Suzuki, Kaoru Ishida, and Tomoyuki Sakamoto for their excellent technical assistance and generous support.
- 5.Kleeff F, Reiser C, Hinz U, et al (2007) Surgery for recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Am Surg 245:566–572Google Scholar
- 11.Casneuf V, Delrue L, Kelles A, et al (2007) Is combined 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography superior to positron emission tomography or computed tomography alone for diagnosis, staging and restaging of pancreatic lesions? Acta Gastroenterol Belg 70:330–338Google Scholar
- 17.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 22:4357–4368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Pannu HK, Cohade C, Bristow RE, Fishman EK, Wahl RL (2004) PET-CT detection of abdominal recurrence of ovarian cancer: radiologic-surgical correlation. Abdom Imaging 39:398–403Google Scholar
- 22.Coleman ER, Delbeke D, Guiberteau MJ, et al (2005) Concurrent PET/CT with an integrated imaging system: intersociety dialogue from the joint working group of the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine, and the Society of Computed Body Tomography and Magnetic Resonance. J Nucl Med 46:1225–1239PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T, Bockisch A, Debatin JF (2004) To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 45:56–65Google Scholar