Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 456–463 | Cite as

Diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of colorectal focal FDG uptake: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Gyung Mo Son
  • Seong-Jang KimEmail author



We aimed to explore the role of the diagnostic accuracy of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake through a systematic review and meta-analysis.


The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library database, from the earliest available date of indexing through April 30, 2018, were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake. We determined the sensitivities and specificities across studies, calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR−), and constructed summary receiver operating characteristic curves.


Across 8 studies (1451 patients), the pooled sensitivity for F-18 FDG PET/CT was 0.87 (95% CI 0.82–0.90) without heterogeneity (χ2 = 10.84, p = 0.37) and a pooled specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.89) with heterogeneity (χ2 = 130.1, p = 0.00). Likelihood ratio (LR) syntheses gave an overall positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 5.2 (95% CI 3.6–7.4) and negative likelihood ratio (LR−) of 0.16 (95% CI 0.12–0.22). The pooled DOR was 32 (95% CI 20–51).


F-18 FDG PET/CT demonstrated good sensitivity and specificity for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake. At present, the literature regarding the use of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake remains still limited; thus, further large multicenter studies would be necessary to substantiate the diagnostic accuracy of F-18 FDG PET/CT for characterization of incidental colorectal focal FDG uptake.


Positron emission tomography PET/CT Colonic uptake Incidental 



This work was supported by a 2-Year Research Grant of Pusan National University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was not required because we only performed data analysis based on the published studies.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because it is a meta-analysis based on the studies that have been published.


  1. 1.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67:7–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leslie A, Carey FA, Pratt NR, Steele RJ (2002) The colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Br J Surg 89:845–860CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkin WS, Saunders BP (2002) Surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomatous polyps. Gut 51(Suppl V):V6–V9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blodgett TM, Meltzer CC, Townsend DW (2007) PET/CT: form and function. Radiology 242:360–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czernin J, Allen-Auerbach M, Schelbert HR (2007) Improvements in cancer staging with PET/CT: literature-based evidence as of September 2006. J Nucl Med 48:78–88Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bar-Shalom R, Yefremov N, Guralnik L, et al. (2003) Clinical performance of PET/CT in evaluation of cancer: additional value for diagnostic imaging and patient management. J Nucl Med 44:1200–1209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lonneux M (2008) FDG-PET and PET/CT in colorectal cancer. PET Clin 3:147–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kantorová I, Lipská L, Bêlohlávek 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 44:1784–1788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Israel O, Yefremov N, Bar-Shalom R, et al. (2005) PET/CT detection of unexpected gastrointestinal foci of 18F-FDG uptake: incidence, localization patterns, and clinical significance. J Nucl Med 46:758–762PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jadvar H, Schambye RB, Segall GM (1999) Effect of atropine and sincalide on the intestinal uptake of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose. Clin Nucl Med 24:965–967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 206:755–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyer MA (1995) Diffusely increased colonic F-18 FDG uptake in acute enterocolitis. Clin Nucl Med 20:434–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weston BR, Iyer RB, Qiao W, et al. (2010) Ability of integrated positron emission and computed tomography to detect significant colonic pathology: the experience of a tertiary cancer center. Cancer 116:1454–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kei PL, Vikram R, Yeung HW, Stroehlein JR, Macapinlac HA (2010) Incidental finding of focal FDG uptake in the bowel during PET/CT: CT features and correlation with histopathologic results. AJR 194:W401–W406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oh JR, Min JJ, Song HC, et al. (2012) A stepwise approach using metabolic volume and SUVmax to differentiate malignancy and dysplasia from benign colonic uptakes on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med 37:e134–e140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shie P (2011) Incidental focal hypermetabolic colorectal lesions identified by positron emission tomography: prevalence of malignancy. Abdom Imaging 36:165–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luboldt W, Volker T, Wiedemann B, et al. (2010) Detection of relevant colonic neoplasms with PET/CT: promising accuracy with minimal CT dose and a standardised PET cut-off. Eur Radiol 20:2274–2285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen YK, Kao CH, Liao AC, Shen YY, Su CT (2003) Colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic adults: the role of FDG PET scan. Anticancer Res 23:4357–4361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tatlidil R, Jadvar H, Bading JR, Conti PS (2002) Incidental colonic fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: correlation with colonoscopic and histopathologic findings. Radiology 224:783–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee ST, Tan T, Poon AM, et al. (2008) Role of low-dose, noncontrast computed tomography from integrated positron emission tomography/computed tomography in evaluating incidental 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-d-glucose-avid colon lesions. Mol Imaging Biol 10:48–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kousgaard SJ, Thorlacius-Ussing O (2017) Incidental colorectal FDG uptake on PET/CT scan and lesions observed during subsequent colonoscopy: a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol 21:521–529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Treglia G, Taralli S, Salsano M, et al. (2014) Prevalence and malignancy risk of focal colorectal incidental uptake detected by 18F-FDG-PET or PET/CT: a meta-analysis. Radiol Oncol 48:99–104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM (2003) The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1129–1135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thompson SG (1994) Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ 309:1351–1355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AW, et al. (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hamza TH, van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T (2008) The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. J Clin Epidemiol 61:41–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA (2001) A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med 20:2865–2884CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lijmer JG, Mol BW, Heisterkamp S, et al. (1999) Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. JAMA 282:1061–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Choi BW, Kim HW, Won KS, et al. (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasia in patients with gastric cancer. Medicine 95:e4741CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Soltau SR, Hess S, Nguyen T, et al. (2016) Clinical significance of incidental focal bowel uptake on 18F-FDG PET/CT as related to colorectal cancer. Hell J Nucl Med 19:245–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Hoeij FB, Keijsers RG, Loffeld BC, et al. (2015) Incidental colonic focal FDG uptake on PET/CT: can the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) guide us in the timing of colonoscopy? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:66–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Na SY, Kim KJ, Han S, et al. (2015) Who should undergo a colonoscopy among patients with incidental colon uptake on PET-CT? Scand J Gastroenterol 50:1045–1053CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cho SH, Kim SW, Kim WC, et al. (2013) Incidental focal colorectal 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. World J Gastroenterol 19:3453–3458CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liu T, Behr S, Khan S, Osterhoff R, Aparici CM (2015) Focal colonic FDG activity with PET/CT: guidelines for recommendation of colonoscopy. World J Nucl Med 14:25–30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee C, Koh SJ, Kim JW, et al. (2013) Incidental colonic 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: do we need colonoscopy for patients with focal uptake confined to the left-sided colon? Dig Dis Sci 58:229–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Drenth JP, Nagengast FM, Oyen WJ (2001) Evaluation of (pre-) malignant colonic abnormalities: endoscopic validation of FDG-PET findings. Eur J Nucl Med 28:1766–1769CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Engel H, Steinert H, Buck A, et al. (1996) Whole-body PET: physiological and artifactual fluorodeoxyglucose accumulations. J Nucl Med 37:441–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Strauss LG (1996) Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose and false-positive results: a major problem in the diagnostics of oncological patients. Eur J Nucl Med 23:1409–1415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Even-Sapir E, Lerman H, Gutman M, et al. (2006) The presentation of malignant tumors and pre-malignant lesions incidentally found on PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 33:541–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gutman F, Alberini JL, Wartski M, et al. (2005) Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT. Am J Roentgenol 185:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pandit-Taskar N, Schöder H, Gonen M, Larson SM, Yeung HW (2004) Clinical significance of unexplained abnormal focal FDG uptake in the abdomen during whole-body PET. AJR 183:1143–1147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ozkol V, Alper E, Aydin N, et al. (2010) The clinical value of incidental 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-avid foci detected on positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Nucl Med Commun 31:128–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryPusan National University Yangsan HospitalYangsanKorea
  2. 2.BioMedical Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and TechnologyPusan National University Yangsan HospitalYangsanKorea
  3. 3.Department of Nuclear MedicinePusan National University Yangsan HospitalYangsanKorea

Personalised recommendations