Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Whole-body PET/CT-colonography: a possible new concept for colorectal cancer staging

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death, and necessitates a conjointly performed staging. Until now, a multi-step-examination including optical colonoscopy, cross-sectional and functional imaging is recommended. However, a single examination for whole-body staging with a dedicated CRC staging protocol is desirable. Thus, we developed and evaluated a combined whole-body PET/CT-colonography protocol for dedicated CRC staging in routine clinical use.

Methods

We integrated CT-colonography into a whole-body PET/CT protocol to achieve a specific “all-in-one” examination for patients suspected of having CRC. After oral and rectal bowel distension, PET/CT-colonography has been performed in 55 patients. All patients had optical colonoscopy one day before PET/CT. PET/CT data sets were evaluated concerning detection and evaluation of colorectal tumour sites, lymph nodes and distant metastases; these results were compared to the results of CT-colonography alone. Surgical resection and/or biopsy served as standards of reference in all patients.

Results

All examinations were fully diagnostic and well tolerated by the patients. PET/CT-colonography showed highly accurate results for overall TNM-evaluation and was significantly more accurate than CT-colonography alone.

Conclusions

Staging patients with whole-body PET/CT-colonography is technically feasible and accurate. Patients with incomplete colonoscopy or potential synchronous bowel lesions might benefit from this approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al. (2005) Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJM, et al. (2004) Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging—a meta-analysis. Radiology 232:773–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Filippone A, Ambrosini R, Fuschi M, et al. (2004) Preoperative T and N staging of colorectal cancer: accuracy of contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT colonography–initial experience. Radiology 231:83–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Neri E, Giusti P, Battolla L, et al. (2002) Colorectal cancer: role of CT colonography in preoperative evaluation after incomplete colonoscopy. Radiology 223:615–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stevenson GW (2000) 1998 RSNA annual oration in diagnostic radiology: colorectal cancer imaging: a challenge for radiologists. Radiology 214:615–621

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schofield JB, Mounter NA, Mallett R, Haboubi NY (2006) The importance of accurate pathological assessment of lymph node involvement in colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 8:460–470

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersen K, Vogt C, Blondin D, et al. (2006) Multi-detector CT-colonography in inflammatory bowel disease: prospective analysis of CT-findings to high-resolution video colonoscopy. Eur J Radiol 58:140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park SH, Ha HK, Kim AY, et al. (2006) Flat polyps of the colon: detection with 16-MDCT colonography—preliminary results. Am J Roentgenol 186:1611–1617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Krueger WR, et al. (2002) Contrast-enhanced CT colonography in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: feasibility of simultaneous evaluation for metastatic disease, local recurrence, and metachronous neoplasia in colorectal carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 178:283–290

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, et al. (2005) CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 237:893–904

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chung DJ, Huh KC, Choi WJ, et al. (2005) CT Colonography using 16-MDCT in the evaluation of colorectal cancer. Am J Roentgenol 184:98–103

    Google Scholar 

  12. Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, et al. (2003) Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 290:3199–3206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 206:755–760

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O, et al. (2003) Routine 18F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 44:1784–1788

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Valk PE, Abella-Columna E, Haseman MK, et al. (1999) Whole-body PET imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Arch Surg 134:503–511

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, et al. (2003) Direct comparison of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44:1797–1803

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. (2000) A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 41:1177–1189

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE (2004) Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 231:305–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim J-H, Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach MS, et al. (2005) Comparison between 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion for restaging of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 46:587–595

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shim SS, Lee KS, Kim B-T, et al. 2005 Non-small cell lung cancer: prospective comparison of integrated FDG PET/CT and CT alone for preoperative staging. Radiology 236:1011–1019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 22:4357–4368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Veit P, Kuhle C, Beyer T, et al. (2006) 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 55:68–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Antoch G, Kuehl H, Kanja J, et al. (2004) Dual-modality PET/CT scanning with negative oral contrast agent to avoid artifacts: introduction and evaluation. Radiology 230:879–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beyer T, Antoch G, Blodgett T, et al. (2003) Dual-modality PET/CT imaging: the effect of respiratory motion on combined image quality in clinical oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:588–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Goh V, et al. (2003) Optimizing colonic distention for multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of hyoscine butylbromide and rectal balloon catheter. Radiology 229:99–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Veit-Haibach P, Kuehle CA, Beyer T, et al. (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of colorectal cancer staging with whole-body PET/CT colonography. JAMA 296:2590–2600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Church J, Delaney C (2003) Randomized, controlled trial of carbon dioxide insufflation during colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 46:322–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Grant DS, Bartram CI, Heron CW (1986) A preliminary study of the possible benefits of using carbon dioxide insufflation during double-contrast barium enema. Br J Radiol 59:190–191

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yee J, Kumar NN, Hung RK, et al. (2003) Comparison of supine and prone scanning separately and in combination at CT colonography. Radiology 226:653–661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Morrin M, Farrell R, Keogan M, et al. (2002) CT colonography: colonic distention improved by dual positioning but not intravenous glucagon. Eur Radiol 12:525

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen SC, Lu DS, Hecht JR, et al. (1999) CT colonography: value of scanning in both the supine and prone positions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:595–599

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, et al. (2001) CT colonography: single- versus multi-detector row imaging. Radiology 219:461–465

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Edwards JT, Mendelson RM, Fritschi L, et al. (2004) Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: community-based study. Radiology 230:459–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fenlon HM, Nunes DP, Schroy PC, et al. (1999) A comparison of virtual and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. N Engl J Med 341:1496–1503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Quon A, Napel S, Beaulieu CF, et al. (2006) “Flying through” and “flying around” a PET/CT scan: Pilot study and development of 3D integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT for virtual bronchoscopy and colonoscopy. J Nucl Med 47:1081–1087

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Veit P, Ruehm S, Kuehl H, et al. (2006) Lymph node staging with dual-modality PET/CT: enhancing the diagnostic accuracy in oncology. Eur J Radiol 58:383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Drenth J, Nagengast F, Oyen W. (2001) Evaluation of (pre-)malignant colonic abnormalities: endoscopic validation of FDG-PET findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 28:1766

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Friedland S, Soetikno R, Carlisle M, et al. (2005) 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography has limited sensitivity for colonic adenoma and early stage colon cancer. Gastroint Endosc 61:395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yasuda S, Fujii H, Nakahara T, et al. (2001) 18F-FDG PET detection of colonic adenomas. J Nucl Med 42:989–992

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gutman F, Alberini J-L, Wartski M, et al. (2005) Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 185:495–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Hospital Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, 45122, Essen, Germany

    Sonja Kinner, Gerald Antoch & Patrick Veit-Haibach

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany

    Andreas Bockisch

Authors
  1. Sonja Kinner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerald Antoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Bockisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick Veit-Haibach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonja Kinner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kinner, S., Antoch, G., Bockisch, A. et al. Whole-body PET/CT-colonography: a possible new concept for colorectal cancer staging. Abdom Imaging 32, 606–612 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-007-9202-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-007-9202-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation