Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anal carcinoma: FDG PET/CT in staging, response evaluation, and follow-up

  • Pictorial Essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The role of FDG PET/CT in anal cancer is becoming increasingly important. At the time of initial staging, FDG PET/CT can detect the primary site of disease more frequently than CT, is sensitive for nodal and metastatic spread and alters staging in a significant number of patients. Indeed, the NCCN guidelines for anal cancer published in April 2012 recommend FDG PET/CT for therapy planning. Metabolic activity of primary anal cancer at presentation is a potential biomarker for predicting prognosis, treatment response and survival. More intensely FDG-avid primary malignancy is associated with a higher incidence of disease spread. Metabolic response following chemoradiotherapy is associated with improved survival. The aim of this paper is to provide an up-to-date pictorial review of FDG PET/CT in anal cancer at the time of staging and to illustrate its utility for determining response to therapy and detecting recurrent disease.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A (2011) Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 61:212–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/anus.html. Accessed 3 June 2012

  3. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. (eds) (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. New York: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benson AB III, Arnoletti JP, Bekaii-Saab T, et al. (2012) Anal carcinoma, version 2.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 10:449–454

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, et al. (2008) Tumor response and survival predicted by post-therapy FDG-PET/CT in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:180–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goh V, Gollub FK, Liaw J, et al. (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal before and after chemoradiation: can MRI predict for eventual clinical outcome? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 78:715–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Grigsby PW (2009) FDG-PET/CT: new horizons in anal cancer. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 33:456–458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhuva NJ, Glynne-Jones R, Sonoda L, et al. (2012) To PET or not to PET? That is the question. Staging in anal cancer. Ann Oncol 23(8):2078–2082

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wells IT, Fox BM (2012) PET/CT in anal cancer—is it worth doing? Clin Radiol 67:535–540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Winton E, Heriot AG, Ng M, Hicks RJ, et al. (2009) The impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the staging, management and outcome of anal cancer. Br J Cancer 100:693–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cotter SE, Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, et al. (2006) FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of anal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:720–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Trautmann TG, Zuger JH (2005) Positron emission tomography for pretreatment staging and post treatment evaluation in cancer of the anal canal. Mol Imaging Biol 7:309–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nguyen BT, Joon DL, Khoo V, et al. (2008) Assessing the impact of FDG-PET in the management of anal cancer. Radiother Oncol 87:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Krengli M, Milia ME, Turri L, et al. (2010) FDG-PET/CT imaging for staging and target volume delineation in conformal radiotherapy of anal carcinoma. Radiat Oncol 5:10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mistrangelo M, Pelosi E, Bellò M, et al. (2012) Role of positron emission tomography–computed tomography in the management of anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 84(1):66–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vercellino L, Montravers F, de Parades V, et al. (2011) Impact of FDG PET/CT in the staging and the follow-up of anal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:201–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sveistrup J, Loft A, Berthelsen AK, et al. (2012) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the staging and treatment of anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 83:134–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, et al, eds. (2010) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2007. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute

  19. Klas JV, Rothenberger DA, Wong WD, Madoff RD (1999) Malignant tumors of the anal canal: the spectrum of disease, treatment, and outcomes. Cancer 85:1686–1693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kidd EA, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA, Grigsby PW (2010) Anal cancer maximum F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography is correlated with prognosis. Radiother Oncol 95:288–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ajani JA, Winter KA, Gunderson LL, et al. (2010) Prognostic factors derived from a prospective database dictate clinical biology of anal cancer: the intergroup trial (RTOG 98-11). Cancer 116:4007–4013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Das P, Bhatia S, Eng C, et al. (2007) Predictors and patterns of recurrence after definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:794–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Glynne-Jones R, Northover JM, ESMO Guidelines Working Group (2010) Anal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 21:v87–v92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    Sachin S. Saboo, Katherine Zukotynski, Atul B. Shinagare, Katherine M. Krajewski & Nikhil Ramaiya

Authors
  1. Sachin S. Saboo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Zukotynski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Atul B. Shinagare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katherine M. Krajewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikhil Ramaiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sachin S. Saboo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saboo, S.S., Zukotynski, K., Shinagare, A.B. et al. Anal carcinoma: FDG PET/CT in staging, response evaluation, and follow-up. Abdom Imaging 38, 728–735 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9958-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9958-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation