18F-FDG PET/CT IN DIFFERENTIATING EQUIVOCAL CT LESIONS IN PATIENT WITH COLORECTAL CANCER

  • Goran Spirov University Institute of Positron Emission Tomography , Skopje, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, R.North Macedonia
  • Simon Beshliev University Institute of Positron Emission Tomography, Skopje, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, R.North Macedonia
  • Niki Matveeva Institute of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, R.North Macedonia
  • Vasilcho Spirov University Institute of Radiology , Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, R.North Macedonia
  • Ana Ugrinska University Institute of Positron Emission Tomography, Skopje, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, R.North Macedonia

Abstract

Imaging is vital in the follow-up strategy of patients with colorectal cancer. Computed tomography is widely accepted as a method of choice, but further work up is required when equivocal findings are present. The objective of this study was to investigate the potential of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) as a problem-solving tool of dubious CT findings in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the follow-up period. This was a retrospective review of thirty-two patients referred for 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT imaging due to suspicion of recurrent disease solely based on CT exam. The diagnosis of a malignancy lesion was based on intensity of the lesion, location, shape, size, as well as CT findings.  There was a follow-up period of at least six months after the PET/CT examination. The most common site of detected lesions that could not be characterized by CT were the lungs (13/32; 40.5%), followed by liver (8/32, 25%) and lymph nodes (5/32, 15.6%). Additionally, lesions were reported at adrenal gland, spleen, peritoneum, ovary and at surgical site. In almost half of the patients (15/32; 46.8%) lesions were detected by PET/CT and characterized as disease recurrence. Metastases at additional site were detected in five patients (6/15, 40%).  In the follow-up period recurrent disease was detected in two patients (2/32, 6.2%) with negative PET/CT findings. Only one person had a false positive finding. The overall positive and negative predictive value of FDG-PET/CT was 93.3% and 84.6% respectively. PET/CT offers a high overall positive and negative predictive value in distinguishing CRC metastasis. Furthermore, it exceeds CT performance in detecting extrahepatic recurrent disease.                                  


Keywords: PET scan, CT scan, imaging, colorectal cancer.


 https://doi.org/10.55302/JMS2251001s

References

1. Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Gastroenterology Review [Internet]. 2019;14(2):89–103. Available from: https://www.termedia.pl/doi/10.5114/pg.2018.81072.
2. Korngold EK, Moreno C, David ;, Kim H, Fowler KJ, Cash BD, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® 2 Staging of Colorectal Cancer STAGING OF COLORECTAL CANCER Expert Panel on Gastrointestinal Imaging [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 23]. Available from: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69339/Narrative/.
3.Liu SL, Cheung WY. Role of surveillance imaging and endoscopy in colorectal cancer follow-up: Quality over quantity? World journal of gastroenterology [Internet]. 2019 Jan 7;25(1):59–68. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30643358.
4. Benson AB, Al-Hawary MM, Azad N, Chen Y-J, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, et al. NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2021 Colon Cancer NCCN Evidence Blocks TM Continue NCCN Guidelines Panel Disclosures [Internet]. 2021. Available from: www.nccn.org/patients.
5. Argilés G, Tabernero J, Labianca R, Hochhauser D, Salazar R, Iveson T, et al. Localised colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology [Internet]. 2020 Oct 1;31(10):1291–305. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0923753420399324.
6. Chen L, Zhang J, Zhang L, Bao J, Liu C, Xia Y, et al. Meta-analysis of gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of liver metastases. PloS one [Internet]. 2012 Nov 7;7(11):e48681. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23144927.
7. Shao H, Ma X, Gao Y, Wang J, Wu J, Wang B, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency for local recurrence of rectal cancer using CT, MRI, PET and PET-CT A systematic review protocol. Medicine (United States). 2018;97(48):10–3.
8. Lake ES, Wadhwani S, Subar D, Kauser A, Harris C, Chang D, et al. The influence of FDG PET-CT on the detection of extrahepatic disease in patients being considered for resection of colorectal liver metastasis. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England [Internet]. 2014 Apr;96(3):211–5. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24780786.
9. Høydahl Ø, Edna T-H, Xanthoulis A, Lydersen S, Endreseth BH. Long-term trends in colorectal cancer: incidence, localization, and presentation. BMC Cancer [Internet]. 2020 Dec 10;20(1):1077. Available from: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-020-07582-x.
10. van Gestel YRBM, de Hingh IHJT, van Herk-Sukel MPP, van Erning FN, Beerepoot L v., Wijsman JH, et al. Patterns of metachronous metastases after curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiology [Internet]. 2014;38(4):448–54. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2014.04.004.
11.Tan GJS, Berlangieri SU, Lee ST, Scott AM. FDG PET/CT in the liver: lesions mimicking malignancies. Abdominal imaging [Internet]. 2014 Feb;39(1):187–95. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24233161.
12. Patel S, McCall M, Ohinmaa A, Bigam D, Dryden DM. Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomographic Scans Compared to Computed Tomographic Scans for Detecting Colorectal Liver Metastases. Annals of Surgery [Internet]. 2011 Apr;253(4):666–71. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00000658-201104000-00006.
13. Deleau C, Buecher B, Rousseau C, Kraeber-Bodéré F, Flamant M, des Varannes SB, et al. Clinical impact of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan/computed tomography in comparison with computed tomography on the detection of colorectal cancer recurrence. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology [Internet]. 2011 Mar;23(3):275–81. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00042737-201103000-00013.
14. Wiering B, Ruers TJM, Krabbe PFM, Dekker HM, Oyen WJG. Comparison of multiphase CT, FDG-PET and intra-operative ultrasound in patients with colorectal liver metastases selected for surgery. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2007 Feb;14(2):818–26.
15. Kleiner S, Weber W. [Importance of FDG-PET/computed tomography in colorectal cancer]. Der Radiologe [Internet]. 2019 Sep 1;59(9):812–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31428810.
16. Seo HJ, Kim M-J, Lee JD, Chung W-S, Kim Y-E. Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for the detection of colorectal liver metastases. Investigative radiology [Internet]. 2011 Sep;46(9):548–55. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21577131.
17. Tsurusaki M, Sofue K, Murakami T. Current evidence for the diagnostic value of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for liver metastasis. Hepatology research : the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology [Internet]. 2016 Aug 1;46(9):853–61. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26750497.
18. Rollvén E, Blomqvist L, Öistämö E, Hjern F, Csanaky G, Abraham-Nordling M. Morphological predictors for lymph node metastases on computed tomography in colon cancer. Abdominal Radiology [Internet]. 2019 May 14;44(5):1712–21. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-019-01900-z.
19. Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Domeki Y, Tsubaki M, Sunagawa M, et al. Performance of integrated FDG PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of recurrent colorectal cancer: Comparison with integrated FDG PET/non-contrast- enhanced CT and enhanced CT. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2009 Sep;36(9):1388–96.
20. Rahman WT, Wale DJ, Viglianti BL, Townsend DM, Manganaro MS, Gross MD, et al. The impact of infection and inflammation in oncologic 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy [Internet]. 2019 Sep 1;117:109168. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0753332219323376.
21. Parnaby CN, Bailey W, Balasingam A, Beckert L, Eglinton T, Fife J, et al. Pulmonary staging in colorectal cancer: a review. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland [Internet]. 2012 Jun;14(6):660–70. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21689294.
22. Kim HY, Lee SJ, Lee G, Song L, Kim S-A, Kim JY, et al. Should Preoperative Chest CT Be Recommended to All Colon Cancer Patients? Annals of Surgery [Internet]. 2014 Feb;259(2):323–8. Available from: https://journals.lww.com/00000658-201402000-00019.
23. Jiménez Londoño GA, García Vicente AM, Sánchez Pérez V, Jiménez Aragón F, León Martin A, Cano Cano JM, et al. 18 F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced CT in the standard surveillance of high risk colorectal cancer patients. European Journal of Radiology [Internet]. 2014 Dec 1;83(12):2224–30. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0720048X14004264.
24. Nomori H, Watanabe K, Ohtsuka T, Naruke T, Suemasu K, Uno K. Evaluation of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET scanning for pulmonary nodules less than 3 cm in diameter, with special reference to the CT images. Lung Cancer [Internet]. 2004 Jul;45(1):19–27. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016950020400039X.
25. Metser U, You J, McSweeney S, Freeman M, Hendler A. Assessment of Tumor Recurrence in Patients With Colorectal Cancer and Elevated Carcinoembryonic Antigen Level: FDG PET/CT Versus Contrast-Enhanced 64-MDCT of the Chest and Abdomen. American Journal of Roentgenology [Internet]. 2010 Mar;194(3):766–71. Available from: http://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.09.3205.
26. Yu T, Meng N, Chi D, Zhao Y, Wang K, Luo Y. Diagnostic Value of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in Detecting Local Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 26 Individual Studies. Cell biochemistry and biophysics [Internet]. 2015 Jun 15;72(2):443–51. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25737131.
27. Moore A, Ulitsky O, Ben-Aharon I, Perl G, Kundel Y, Sarfaty M, et al. Early PET-CT in patients with pathological stage III colon cancer may improve their outcome: Results from a large retrospective study. Cancer Medicine. 2018;7(11):5470–7.
28. Fehr M, Müller J, Knitel M, Fornaro J, Horber D, Koeberle D, et al. Early Postoperative FDG-PET-CT Imaging Results in a Relevant Upstaging in the pN2 Subgroup of Stage III Colorectal Cancer Patients. Clinical Colorectal Cancer [Internet]. 2017;16(4):343–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2017.03.007.
29. Maas M, Rutten IJG, Nelemans PJ, Lambregts DMJ, Cappendijk VC, Beets GL, et al. What is the most accurate whole-body imaging modality for assessment of local and distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging [Internet]. 2011 Aug 6;38(8):1560–71. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00259-011-1785-1.
30. Vallam KC, Guruchannabasavaiah B, Agrawal A, Rangarajan V, Ostwal V, Engineer R, et al. Carcinoembryonic antigen directed PET-CECT scanning for postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland [Internet]. 2017 Oct;19(10):907–11. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/codi.13695.
31. Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL. Direct comparison of 18F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 2003;44(11):1797–803.
32. Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A, Utzschneider S, Becker CR, Tiling R, et al. Whole-body MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T compared with FDG-PET-CT for the detection of tumour recurrence in patients with colorectal cancer. European radiology [Internet]. 2009 Jun;19(6):1366–78. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19190917.
33. Ince S, Okuyucu K, Hancerliogullarl O, Alagoz E, San H, Arslan N. Clinical significance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the follow-up of colorectal cancer: Searching off approaches increasing specificity for detection of recurrence. Radiology and Oncology. 2017;51(4):378–85.
Published
2022-05-04
How to Cite
SPIROV, Goran et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT IN DIFFERENTIATING EQUIVOCAL CT LESIONS IN PATIENT WITH COLORECTAL CANCER. Journal of Morphological Sciences, [S.l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-10, may 2022. ISSN 2545-4706. Available at: <http://jms.mk/jms/article/view/vol5no1-1>. Date accessed: 01 apr. 2025.
Citation Formats
Issue
Vol 5 No 1 (2022): JMS
Section
Articles