Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 63–68 | Cite as

The incremental value of dual modality PET/CT imaging over PET imaging alone in advanced colorectal cancer

  • A. H. Engledow
  • G. E. L. Bond-Smith
  • D. Francis
  • F. Pakzad
  • J. Bomanji
  • A. Groves
  • P. J. Ell
Original Article



18Fluoro-2-Deoxy Glucose (18 FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) impacts upon the management of recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) but is limited by anatomical localisation. The development of integrated positron emission and computerised tomography (PET/CT) yields high anatomical resolution combined with the PET data. We evaluate the added value of PET/CT over PET alone.


Thirty-one consecutive patients had PET/CT for suspected recurrent CRC. Two blinded observers (A and B) reported images from PET alone and from integrated PET/CT. Lesion detection, lesion localisation, diagnostic certainty and impact on surgical management was assessed for each data set and then compared. The minimum clinical follow up was for 8 months (median 9.6 months) and 7 patients had histological confirmation of diagnosis.


Compared to PET alone, PET/CT the percentage of lesions accurately localised increased from 96% to 99% for observer A and 86% to 99% for Observer B. PET/CT increased the number of lesions reported as definitely abnormal or normal from 78% to 95% for Observer A and from 72% to 94% for Observer B. Surgical management was changed in 6 patients (19%). Inter-observer variability was reduced with PET/CT.


PET/CT improves the accuracy of reporting in recurrent colorectal cancer and influences surgical management in a significant proportion of patients when compared to PET only imaging.


PETCT Advanced colorectal cancer Surgical management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Childs AF, Blake M (2004) FDG-PET and PET/CT in Colon Cancer Restaging. J P Nuc Med
  2. 2.
    Arulampalam TH, Costa DC, Bomanji JB, Ell PJ (2001) The clinical application of positron emission tomography to colorectal cancer management. Q J Nucl Med 45:215–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whiteford MH et al. (2000) Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 43:759–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kinkel K, Lu Y, Both M, Warren RS, Thoeni RF (2002) Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis. Radiology 224:748–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fong Y 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
  6. 6.
    Ruers TJ et al. (2002) Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 20:388–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frohlich A, Diederichs CG, Staib L, Vogel J, Beger HG, Reske SN (1999) Detection of liver metastases from pancreatic cancer using FDG PET. J Nucl. Med 40:250–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruers TJ, Langenhoff BS, Neeleman N, Jager GJ, Strijk S, Wobbes T, Corstens FH, Oyen WJ (2002) Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18] flurodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 20:388–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arulampalam TH, Ledermann J, Costa DC (2001) Asymptomatic patient with an increasing concentration of CEA. Lancet Oncol 2:172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flamen P et al. (2001) Unexplained rising carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer: the utility of positron emission tomography (PET). Eur J Cancer 37:862–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zervos EE, Badgwell BD, Burak WE, Jr., Arnold MW, Martin EW (2001) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as an adjunct to carcinoembryonic antigen in the management of patients with presumed recurrent colorectal cancer and nondiagnostic radiologic workup. Surgery 130: 636–643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Staib L, Schirrmeister H, Reske SN, Beger HG (2000) Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in recurrent colorectal cancer a contribution to surgical decision making? Am J Surg 180:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desai DC et al. (2003) Positron emission tomography affects surgical management in recurrent colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 10:59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simo M et al. (2002) FDG-PET improves the management of patients with suspected recurrence of colorectal cancer. Nucl Med Commun 23:975–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalff V et al. (2002) The clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence of colorectal cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 43: 492–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arulampalam TH et al. (2001) Positron emission tomography and colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 88:176–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vesselle HJ, Miraldi FD (1998) FDG PET of the retroperitoneum: normal anatomy, variants, pathologic conditions, and strategies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls. Radiographics 18: 805–823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miraldi F, Vesselle H, Faulhaber PF, Adler LP, Leisure GP (1998) Elimination of artifactual accumulation of FDG in PET imaging of colorectal cancer. Clin Nucl Med 23:3–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leisure GP et al. (1997) Technical improvements in fluorine-18-FDG PET imaging of the abdomen and pelvis. J Nucl Med Technol 25:115–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beyer T et al. (2000) A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 41:1369–1379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lardinois D 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
  22. 22.
    Goerres GW et al. (2002) Accuracy of image coregistration of pulmonary lesions in patients with non-small cell lung cancer using an integrated PET/CT system. J Nucl Med 43: 1469–1475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tann MA, Fletcher JW, McHenry L, Dewitt JM, LeBlanc JK, Howard TJ, Schmidt CM, Fogel EL, Sherman S, and Lehman GA (2003) FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of cystic pancreatic tumours: comparison with endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration. J Nucl Med 44(Suppl):24Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Mourtzikos KA, and Wahl RL (2003) Initial experience with FDG PET-CT in the evaluation of breast cancer. J Nucl Med 44(Suppl):394Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nagabhushan N, Syed R, Hughes S, Gacinovic S, Costa DC, Visvikis D, Ell PJ, and Bomanji JB (2003) Advantages of using combined PET/CT in gynaecological tumours. J Nucl Med 44(Suppl):393Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tatsumi M, Cohade C, Zellars R, Bristow R, and Wahl RL (2003) Initial experience in imaging uterine cervical cancer with FDG PET-CT: direct comparison with PET. J Nucl Med 44(Suppl):394Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT, Hall NC (2004) PET/CT Today and Tomorrow. J Nucl Med 45(1):4S–14SPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. H. Engledow
    • 1
  • G. E. L. Bond-Smith
    • 1
  • D. Francis
    • 2
  • F. Pakzad
    • 1
  • J. Bomanji
    • 3
  • A. Groves
    • 3
  • P. J. Ell
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Colorectal and Laparoscopic SurgeryChase Farm HospitalEnfieldUSA
  2. 2.Department of Laparoscopic SurgeryChase Farm HospitalEnfieldUSA
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicineUniversity College Hospital LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations