Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative accuracy of qualitative and quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis in detection of lymph node metastasis from anal cancer

  • Hollow Organ GI
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic performance of qualitative and quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT in detection of regional and distant lymph node metastasis in patients with anal cancer.

Methods

Between 2004 and 2017, 28 patients with anal cancer who had staging PET/CT and pathological assessment of suspicious lymph nodes were included. For qualitative analysis, positive lymph nodes were defined as uptake visually higher than the liver reference uptake. For quantitative study, lymph nodes were contoured to determine maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to extract the optimal cut-offs and area under the curve (AUC) of SUVmax, lesion to background (L/B) ratio, short axis diameter (SAD), and MTV of lymph nodes. Histopathologic analysis was a reference standard.

Results

A total of 28 lymph nodes (24 inguinal, 2 external iliac, 1 internal iliac, and 1 paraaortic nodes) in 28 patients on PET/CT were included. With the qualitative visual analysis, 19 patients were categorized as positive for nodal metastasis with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 85%, 75%, and 82%. The optimal SUVmax and L/B ratio cut-offs were 2.6 and 1.0 with both sensitivity and specificity of 95% and 75% (AUC of SUVmax = 0.893, AUC of L/B ratio = 0.912). Using the best cut-off of 1.6 cm for SAD and 3.65 cm3 for MTV, both sensitivity and specificity were 80% and 100% (AUC of SAD = 0.950, AUC of MTV = 0.931).

Conclusions

SUVmax optimization may be helpful in enhancing the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT in nodal staging patients with anal cancer.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Uronis HE, Bendell JC (2007) Anal cancer: an overview. The Oncologist 12:524–534. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.12-5-524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anal Cancer - Cancer Stat Facts. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/anus.html. Accessed 27 Feb 2018

  3. (2012) Anal Cancer: Statistics. In: Cancer.Net. https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/anal-cancer/statistics. Accessed 27 Feb 2018

  4. Glynne-Jones R, Sebag-Montefiore D, Adams R, et al (2013) Prognostic factors for recurrence and survival in anal cancer: generating hypotheses from the mature outcomes of the first United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I). Cancer 119:748–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27825

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chawla AK, Willett CG (2001) Squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal and anal margin. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 15:321–344, vi

    Google Scholar 

  6. Scher ED, Ahmed I, Yue NJ, Jabbour SK (2014) Technical aspects of radiation therapy for anal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol 5:198–211. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2014.026

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. RRyan DP, Compton CC, Mayer RJ (2000) Carcinoma of the anal canal. N Engl J Med 342:792–800. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200003163421107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Glynne-Jones R, Nilsson PJ, Aschele C, et al (2014) Anal cancer: ESMO-ESSO-ESTRO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol 40:1165–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2014.07.030

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerard JP, Chapet O, Samiei F, et al (2001) Management of inguinal lymph node metastases in patients with carcinoma of the anal canal: experience in a series of 270 patients treated in Lyon and review of the literature. Cancer 92:77–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mohammadkhani Shali S, Schmitt V, Behrendt FF, et al (2016) Metabolic tumour volume of anal carcinoma on (18)FDG PET/CT before combined radiochemotherapy is the only independant determinant of recurrence free survival. Eur J Radiol 85:1390–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.05.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx#site. Accessed 3 Mar 2018

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 84:66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.10.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mistrangelo M, Pelosi E, Bellò M, et al (2010) Comparison of positron emission tomography scanning and sentinel node biopsy in the detection of inguinal node metastases in patients with anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Caldarella C, Annunziata S, Treglia G, et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography/computed tomography using fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose in detecting locoregional nodal involvement in patients with anal canal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ScientificWorldJournal 2014:196068. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/196068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.06.1955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol 23:2078–2082. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr599

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Wells IT, Fox BM (2012) PET/CT in anal cancer - is it worth doing? Clin Radiol 67:535–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2011.10.030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. van Egmond SL, Piscaer V, Janssen LM, et al (2016) Influence of FDG-PET on primary nodal target volume definition for head and neck carcinomas. Acta Oncol Stockh Swed 55:1099–1106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2016.1182643

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Engstrom PF, Arnoletti JP, Benson AB, et al Anal Carcinoma. http://www.jnccn.org. Accessed 27 Feb 2018

  21. Noorani A, Rabey N, Durrani A, et al (2013) Systematic review of sentinel lymph node biopsy in anal squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Surg 11:762–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.07.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lucignani G, Paganelli G, Bombardieri E (2004) The use of standardized uptake values for assessing FDG uptake with PET in oncology: a clinical perspective. Nucl Med Commun 25:651–656

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohseni S, Shojaiefard A, Khorgami Z, et al (2014) Peripheral Lymphadenopathy: Approach and Diagnostic Tools. Iran J Med Sci 39:158–170

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kitajima K, Suenaga Y, Minamikawa T, et al (2015) Clinical significance of SUVmax in 18F-FDG PET/CT scan for detecting nodal metastases in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma. SpringerPlus 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1521-6

  25. Dequanter D, Shahla M, Aubert C, et al (2015) Prognostic value of FDG PET/CT in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. OncoTargets Ther 8:2279–2283. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S85479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bella AJE, Zhang Y-R, Fan W, et al (2014) Maximum standardized uptake value on PET/CT in preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis from thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Chin J Cancer 33:211–217. https://doi.org/10.5732/cjc.013.10039

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kumar A, Dutta R, Kannan U, et al (2011) Evaluation of mediastinal lymph nodes using 18F-FDG PET-CT scan and its histopathologic correlation. Ann Thorac Med 6:11–16. https://doi.org/10.4103/1817-1737.74270

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, White 270, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Thitinan Chulroek, Hamed Kordbacheh, Dearada Wangcharoenrung, Kamonwon Cattapan, Pedram Heidari & Mukesh G. Harisinghani

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, 1873 Rama 4 Road, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Thitinan Chulroek

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Vajira Hospital, Nawamindradhiraj University, 681 Samsen Road, Dusit, Bangkok, 10300, Thailand

    Dearada Wangcharoenrung

  4. Department of Radiology, Prince of Songkla University, 15 Karnjanavanit Road, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand

    Kamonwon Cattapan

Authors
  1. Thitinan Chulroek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamed Kordbacheh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dearada Wangcharoenrung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kamonwon Cattapan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pedram Heidari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mukesh G. Harisinghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thitinan Chulroek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. IRB statement: Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) approval were obtained and requirement for informed consent was waived by our hospital IRB.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chulroek, T., Kordbacheh, H., Wangcharoenrung, D. et al. Comparative accuracy of qualitative and quantitative 18F-FDG PET/CT analysis in detection of lymph node metastasis from anal cancer. Abdom Radiol 44, 828–835 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01907-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01907-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation