Advertisement

The use of PET/PET CT in the Management of Colorectal Cancer

  • Sergio Carlos Nahas
  • Jose G. Guillem
  • Caio Sergio R. Nahas
  • Manoel de Souza Rocha

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) is considered a potentially useful diagnostic tool in the management of a variety of malignancies. It has been used for staging, evaluating recurrent and metastatic disease and tumoral response to neoadjuvant therapy, and providing prognostic information. However, some data are available about its definitive role in the colorectal cancer (CRC) population. In this chapter, the most recent evidence and future perspectives are presented for [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET in managing patients with CRC.

Keywords

Colorectal Cancer Positron Emission Tomography Rectal Cancer Colorectal Liver Metastasis Positron Emission Tomography Scanning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosenbaum SJ, Stergar H, Antoch G et al (2006) Staging and follow-up of gastrointestinal tumors with PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 31(1):25–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar R, Nadig MR, Chauhan A (2005) Positron emission tomography: clinical applications in oncology. Part 1. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 5(6):1079–1094PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pauwels EK, Ribeiro MJ, Stoot JH et al (1998) FDG accumulation and tumor biology. Nucl Med Biol 25(4):317–322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chung JK, Lee YJ, Kim C et al (1999) Mechanisms related to [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake of human colon cancers transplanted in nude mice. J Nucl Med 40(2):339–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U (1999) Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. Eur J Cancer 35(13):1773–1782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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(3):755–760PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mukai M, Sadahiro S, Yasuda S et al (2000) Preoperative evaluation by whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with primary colorectal cancer. Oncol Rep 7(1):85–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O et al (2003) Routine (18)F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 44(11):1784–1788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gearhart SL, Frassica D, Rosen R et al (2006) Improved staging with pretreatment positron emission tomography/computed tomography in low rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 13(3):397–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heriot AG, Hicks RJ, Drummond EG et al (2004) Does positron emission tomography change management in primary rectal cancer? A prospective assessment. Dis Colon Rectum 47(4):451–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohade C, Osman M, Leal J, Wahl RL (2003) Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med 44(11):1797–1803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS et al (2003) Whole-body dual-modality PET/CT and whole-body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 290(24):3199–3206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nahas CS, Akhurst T, Yeung H et al (2008) Positron emission tomography detection of distant metastatic or synchronous disease in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer receiving preoperative chemoradiation. Ann Surg Oncol 15:704–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi JY, Lee KS, Kwon OJ et al (2005) Improved detection of second primary cancer using integrated [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography for initial tumor staging. J Clin Oncol 23(30):7654–7659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al (2006) Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 56(2):106–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fong Y, Saldinger PF, Akhurst T et al (1999) Utility of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning on selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Am J Surg 178(4):282–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalff V, Hicks RJ, Ware RE et al (2002) The clinical impact of (18)F-FDG PET in patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence of colorectal cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 43(4):492–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiering B, Krabbe PF, Jager GJ et al (2005) The impact of fluor-18-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases. Cancer 104(12):2658–2670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Selzner M, Hany TF, Wildbrett P et al (2004) Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg 240(6):1027–1034; discussion 1035–1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan S, Tan YM, John A et al (2006) An audit of fusion CT-PET in the management of colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 32(5):564–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lejeune C, Bismuth MJ, Conroy T et al (2005) Use of a decision analysis model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 18F-FDG PET in the management of metachronous liver metastases of colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 46(12):2020–2028PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zubeldia JM, Bednarczyk EM, Baker JG, Nabi HA (2005) The economic impact of 18FDG positron emission tomography in the surgical management of colorectal cancer with hepatic metastases. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 20(4):450–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Akhurst T, Kates TJ, Mazumdar M et al (2005) Recent chemotherapy reduces the sensitivity of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of colorectal metastases. J Clin Oncol 23(34):8713–8716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F, Ogunbiyi OA (1998) Utility of FDGPET for investigating unexplained plasma CEA elevation in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 227(3):319–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lim JW, Tang CL, Keng GH (2005) False positive F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose combined PET/CT scans from suture granuloma and chronic inflammation: report of two cases and review of literature. Ann Acad Med Singapore 34(7):457–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ogunbiyi OA, Flanagan FL, Dehdashti F et al (1997) Detection of recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer: comparison of positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Ann Surg Oncol 4(8):613–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zervos EE, Badgwell BD, Burak WE Jr et al (2001) Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography as an adjunct to carcinoembryonic antigen in the management of patients with presumed recurrent colorectal cancer and nondiagnostic radiologic workup. Surgery 130:636–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moore HG, Akhurst T, Larson SM et al (2003) A casecontrolled study of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the detection of pelvic recurrence in previously irradiated rectal cancer patients. J Am Coll Surg 197(1):22–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF et al (2000) Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 43(6):759–767; discussion 767–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simo M, Lomena F, Setoain J et al (2002) FDG-PET improves the management of patients with suspected recurrence of colorectal cancer. Nucl Med Commun 23(10):975–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Desai DC, Zervos EE, Arnold MW et al (2003) Positron emission tomography affects surgical management in recurrent colorectal cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 10(1):59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Libutti SK, Alexander HR Jr et al (2001) A prospective study of 2-[18F] fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose/positron emission tomography scan, 99mTc-labeled arcitumomab (CEA scan), and blind second-look laparotomy for detecting colon cancer recurrence in patients with increasing carcinoembryonic antigen levels. Ann Surg Oncol 8(10):779–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H et al (2004) Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 232(3):815–822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sauer R, Becker H, Hohenberger W et al (2004) Preoperative versus postoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351(17):1731–1740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guillem JG, Puig-La Calle J Jr et al (2000) Prospective assessment of primary rectal cancer response to preoperative radiation and chemotherapy using 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Dis Colon Rectum 43(1):18–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Amthauer H, Denecke T, Rau B et al (2004) Response prediction by FDG-PET after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and combined regional hyperthermia of rectal cancer: correlation with endorectal ultrasound and histopathology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(6):811–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chessin DB, Yeung H, Shia J et al (2005) Positron emission tomography during preoperative combined modality therapy for rectal cancer may predict ultimate pathologic response. A prospective analysis. Am Soc Clin Oncol 165:3612 (abstract)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guillem JG, Moore HG, Akhurst T et al (2004) Sequential preoperative fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography assessment of response to preoperative chemoradiation: a means for determining long-term outcomes of rectal cancer. J Am Coll Surg 199(1):1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Calvo FA, Domper M, Matute R et al (2004) 18F-FDG positron emission tomography staging and restaging in rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58(2):528–535PubMedGoogle Scholar

References

  1. 1.
    Sheehan JJ, Ridge CA, Ward EV et al (2007) FDG PET in preoperative assessment of colorectal liver metastases combining “evidence-based practice” and “technology assessment” methods to develop departmental imaging protocols: should FDG PET be routinely used in the preoperative assessment of patients with colorectal liver metastases? Acad Radiol 14:389–397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Wever W, Stroobants S, Verschakelen JA (2007) Integrated PET/CT in lung cancer imaging: history and technical aspects. JBR-BTR 90:112–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greco C, Rosenzweig K, Cascini GL, Tamburrini O (2007) Current status of PET/CT for tumour volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 57:125–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shin SS, Jeong YY, Min JJ et al (2007) Preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: CT vs. integrated FDG PET/CT. Abdom Imaging [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schimmer C, Neukam K, Elert O (2006) Staging of non-small cell lung cancer: clinical value of positron emission tomography and mediastinoscopy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 5:418–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceresoli GL, Cattaneo GM, Castellone P et al (2007) Role of computed tomography and [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography image fusion in conformal radiotherapy of non-small-cell lung cancer: a comparison with standard techniques with and without elective nodal irradiation. Tumori 93:88–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hicks RJ, Ware RE, Lau EW (2006) PET/CT: will it change the way that we use CT in cancer imaging? Cancer Imaging 6:S52–S62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Louvet C, de Gramont A, Tournigand C et al (2001) Correlation between progression free survival and response rate in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer 91:2033–2038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yoo PS, Lopez-Soler RI, Longo WE, Cha CH (2006) Liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer in the age of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Clin Colorectal Cancer 6:202–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kemeny N (2006) Management of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Oncology 20:1161–1176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mentha G, Majno PE, Andres A et al (2006) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection of advanced synchronous liver metastases before treatment of the colorectal primary. Br J Surg 93:872–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Takahashi S, Kuroki Y, Nasu K et al (2006) Positron emission tomography with F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose in evaluating colorectal hepatic metastasis down-staged by chemotherapy. Anticancer Res 26:4705–4711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benoist S, Brouquet A, Penna C et al (2006) Complete response of colorectal liver metastases after chemotherapy — does it mean cure? J Clin Oncol 24:3939–3945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riedl CC, Akhurst T, Larson S et al (2007) 18F-FDG PET scanning correlates with tissue markers of poor prognosis and predicts mortality for patients after liver resection for colorectal metastases. J Nucl Med 48:771–775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elias D, Liberale G, Vernerey D et al (2005) Hepatic and extrahepatic colorectal metastases: when resectable their localization does not matter, but their total number has a prognostic effect. Ann Surg Oncol 12:900–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Watanabe T, Tsurita G, Muto T et al (2002) Extended lymphadenectomy and preoperative radiotherapy for lower rectal cancers. Surgery 132:27–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrera-Ornelas L, Justiniano J, Castillo N et al (1987) Metastases in small lymph nodes from colon cancer. 122:1253–1256Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dworak O (1989) Number and size of lymph nodes and node metastases in rectal carcinomas. Surg Endosc 3:96–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veit-Haibach P, Kuehle CA, Beyer T et al (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of colorectal cancer staging with whole-body PET/CT colonography. JAMA 296:2590–2600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kinner S, Antoch G, Bockisch A, Veit-Haibach P (2007) Whole-body PET/CT-colonography: a possible new concept for colorectal cancer staging. Abdom Imaging 32(5):606–612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schaefer O, Langer M (2007) Detection of recurrent rectal cancer with CT, MRI and PET/CT. Eur Radiol 17:2044–2054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamoto Y, Sakamoto S, Okada T et al (2007) Clinical value of manual fusion of PET and CT images in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:257–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sarikaya I, Bloomston M, Povoski SP et al (2007) FDG-PET scan in patients with clinically and/or radiologically suspicious colorectal cancer recurrence but normal CEA. World J Surg Oncol 5:64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rappeport ED, Loft A (2007) Liver metastases from colorectal cancer: imaging with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO)-enhanced MR imaging, computed tomography and positron emission tomography. Abdom Imaging 32(5):624–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prior JO, Kosinski M, Delaloye AB, Denys A (2007) Initial report of PET/CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of liver metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18:801–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pantaleo MA, Fanti S, Lollini PL et al (2007) PET detection of epidermal growth factor receptor in colorectal cancer: a real predictor of response to cetuximab treatment? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:1510–1511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scartozzi M, Bearzi I, Berardi R et al (2004) Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status in primary colorectal tumors does not correlate with EGFR expression in related metastatic sites: implications for treatment with EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies. J Clin Oncol 22:4720–4726CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Carlos Nahas
    • 1
  • Jose G. Guillem
    • 2
  • Caio Sergio R. Nahas
    • 1
  • Manoel de Souza Rocha
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Gastroenterology, Surgical DivisionSao Paulo, SPBrazil
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Sao PauloSao Paulo, SPBrazil

Personalised recommendations