Kolorektal kanserlerin yeniden evrelemesinde F-18 FDG PET/BT’nin önemi

Year 2022, Volume: 3 Issue: 1, 16 - 21, 24.03.2022

Alev Çınar , Esra Arzu Gencoglu

https://doi.org/10.47582/jompac.1053300

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Giriş: Bu çalışmada, kolorektal kanserli hastalarda, uygulanan cerrahi, kemoterapi, radyoterapi sonrası takip döneminde hastalığın nüksünü düşündürür belirti ve bulgu varlığında nüksü doğrulamak ve hastalığın yayılım bölgelerini saptamak için yapılan yeniden evrelemede F-18 FDG PET/BT’nin öneminin saptanması amaçlanmıştır. Bunun için PET/BT görüntüleri, BT görüntüleri ile karşılaştırılmış ve serum CEA düzeyi ile görüntüleme yöntemlerinin uyumu incelenmiştir. Ayrıca, yeniden evrelemede patolojik bulgu saptanan hastalarda uygulanan tedavi sonrası tedaviye cevabın belirlenmesinde PET/BT’nin rolü de araştırılmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Retrospektif olarak yapılan bu çalışmaya, 102 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Tüm hastalara yeniden evrelendirme amacıyla F-18 FDG ile PET/BT görüntülemesi yapılmış olup PET/BT sonuçları, eş zamanlı olarak yapılan BT, serum CEA düzeyi ve klinik, eğer varsa histopatolojik incelemenin sonuçları ile karşılaştırılmıştır.
Bulgular: Çalışmada, nüks şüphesi olan kolorektal kanserli olgularda, PET/BT’nin patoloji saptama oranı %98, BT’nin ise %64,7 olarak hesaplanmıştır. BT’de patoloji izlenmeyen 34 hastada PET/BT ile patolojik lezyonların görüntülenebildiği, serum CEA düzeyi normal olan 70 hastanın 68’inde PET/BT ile, 45’inde ise BT ile patolojik lezyonun lokalize edildiği görülmüştür. Yapılan değerlendirmede, nüks hastalığın saptanmasında PET/BT’nin BT’den daha başarılı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Sonuç: Bu bilgiler ışığında, takip döneminde nüks şüphesi olan kolorektal kanserli olguların yeniden evrelemesinde ve sonrasında yapılan tedavinin etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesinde F-18 PET/BT’nin yararlı olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

Kolorektal kanser, PET/BT, BT, yeniden evreleme

The Impact Of F-18 FDG PET/CT In the restaging of colorectal cancer in patients with suspected recurrence

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the restaging of colorectal cancer in patients with suspected recurrence. Thus, PET/CT findings were compared with that of CT. In addition, the correlation between serum CEA levels and PET/CT and CT findings was investigated. Furthermore, the role of PET/CT in treatment response among patients who were treated after restaging was assessed.
Material and Method: In this retrospective study, a total of 102 patients operated for colorectal cancer (63 female, 39 male, mean age 65.81±4.63 years) were investigated. F-18 FDG PET/CT scans were acquired in all patients. The findings of PET/CT were compared with that of concurrent CT, and also with CEA levels.
Results: In the study, the success rates of PET/CT and CT in detecting pathologic lesions in colorectal cancer cases with suspected recurrence were 98% and 64.7%, respectively. In 34 cases, pathologic lesions were detected with PET/CT, while CT showed no recurrence. The lesions of 68 cases out of 70 with high CEA levels were localized by means of PET/CT, whereas pathology was observed by CT in only 45 cases. Thus, PET/CT was considered more successful than CT in detecting recurrence. In the liver where lesion was localized the most, the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT were 88% and 92%, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity of CT were 80% and 76%, respectively.
Conclusion: In the light of findings, our study suggested PET/CT as a valuable imaging tool for restaging and treatment response assessment in colorectal cancer cases with suspected recurrence.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer, F-18 FDG PET/CT, CT, restaging

References

• Büyükdoğan M. Kolorektal kanserde genetik ve etiyolojik faktörler. Selçuk Tıp Derg 2009; 25: 171-80.
• Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR. Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 78-8.
• Wiering B, Krabbe PF, Jager GJ, Oyen WJ, Ruers TJ The impact of fluor-18-dexyglucose-positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Cancer 2005; 104: 2658-70.
• Potter KC, Husband JE, Houghton SL, Thomas K, Brown G. Diagnostic accuracy of serial CT/magnetic resonance imaging review vs. positron emission tomography/CT in colorectal cancer patients with suspected and known recurrence. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 253-9.
• 5- Graham RA, Wang S, Catalano PJ, Haller DG. Postsurgical surveillance of colon cancer: preliminay cost analysis of physician examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, chest X-ray, and colonoscopy. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 59-63.
• Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J, et al. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer 2003; 3: 26-39.
• Zealley IA, Skehan SJ, Rawlinson J, et al. Selection of patients for resection of hepatic metastases: Improved detection of extrahepatic disease with FDG PET. Radiographics 2001; 21: 55-69.
• Kostakoğlu L, Goldsmith SJ. 18F-FDG PET evaluation of response to therapy for lymphoma and for breast, lung, and colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 224-39.
• Lechner P, Lind P, Goldenberg DM. Can postoperative surveillance with serial CEA immunoscintigraphy detect resectable rectal cancer recurrence and potentially improve tumor-free survival? J Am Coll Surg. 2000; 191: 511-8.
• Esteves FP, Schuster DM, Haklar RK. Gastrointestinal tract malignancies and positron emission tomography: An overview. Semin Nucl Med 2006; 36: 169-181.
• Sarikaya I, Bloomston M, Povoski SP, et al. FDG-PET scan in patients with clinically and/or radiologically suspicious colorectal cancer recurrence but normal CEA. World J Surg Oncol 2007; 5: 64-72.
• Dirisamer A, Halpern, BS, Flöry D, et al. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast –enhanced CT in the staging and restaging of colorectal cancer: Comparison with PET and enhanced CT. Eur J Radiol 2010; 73: 324-8.
• Soyka JD, Veit-Haibach P, Strobel K, et al. Staging pathways in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: is contrast-enhanced F-18-FDG PET/CT the diagnostic tool of choice? J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 354-61.
• Skandalakis William C. Wood, John E. Surgical anatomy and tecnique. Atlanta (GA): Skandalakis Quality Medical Publishing; 1995.
• Kalaycı G. Kolon Kanserleri, Genel Cerrahi, Istanbul: Nobel Tip Kitabevi; 2002.
• Farrokh D. Utility of FDG-PET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA elevation in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1998; 227: 319.
• Schlag P, Lehner B, Strauss LG, Georgi P. Herfarth C. Scar or recurrent rectal cancer Arch Surg 1989; 124:197-200.
• Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, et al. Detection recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of PET and CT. Ann Surg Oncol 1997; 4: 613-20.
• Shamim SA, Kumar R, Halanaik D, et al. Role of FDG-PET/CT in detection of recurrent disease in colorectal cancer. Nuclear Medicine Communications 2010, 31: 590-6.
• Jingu K, Ariga H, Kaneta T, et al. Focal dose escalation using FDG-PET guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy boost for postoperative local recurrent rectal cancer: a planning study with comparison of DVH and NTCP BMC Cancer 2010; 10: 127.
• Brethauer SA, Magrino TJ, Riffenburgh RH, Johnstone PA. Management of recurrent colorectal carcinoma. Colorectal Dis 2002; 4: 246-53.
• Sharma R, Aboagye E. Development of radiotracers for oncology--the interface with pharmacology, Br J Pharmacol. 2011; 163: 1565-85.
• Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1177-89.
• Kanser bildirimlerinin değerlendirilmesi 1993-1994. Ankara: TC Sağlık Bakanlığı Kanser Savaş Daire Başkanlığı, Yayın No: 582; 1997.
• Jacek R. Colorectal cancer management in Poland: Current improvements and future challenges. Eur J Health Econ 2010; 10 (Suppl 1): 57- 63.
• Willkomm P, Bender H, Bangard M, Decker P, Grünwald F, Biersack HJ. FDG PET and immunoscintigraphy with 99mTc-labeled antibody fragments for detection of the recurrence of colorectal carcinoma. J Nuclear Med 2000; 41: 1657-63.
• Niekel MC, Bipat S, Stoker J. Diagnostic imaging of colorectal liver metastases with CT, MR imaging, FDG PET, and/or FDG PET/CT: A meta-analysis of prospective studies including patients who have not previously undergone treatment. Radiology 2010; 257: 674-84.
• Abd Elhalim RM, Khalifa DN, Alfawal, FM, Salem AF. Role of PET/CT in evaluation of postoperative colorectal cancer. Zagazig University Med J 2001;27: 712-23.
• Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P, McCormack L, Kadry Z, Clavien PA.  Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 2004; 240: 1027-36.
• Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Macdonald JS, Haller DG, Laurie JA, Tangen C. An evaluation of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test for monitoring patients with resected colon cancer. JAMA 1993; 270: 943-7.
• McCall JL, Black RB, Rich CA, et al. The value of serum carcinoembryonic antigen in predicting recurrent disease following curative resection of colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37: 875-81.
• Kalff V, Hicks RJ, Ware RE, et al. The clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence. J Nuclear Med 2002; 43: 492-9.