Advertisement

Role of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography

  • Secondo LastoriaEmail author
  • Luigi Aloj
  • Corradina Caracò
  • Raffaele Farese
  • Anna Morisco
Part of the Updates in Surgery book series (UPDATESSURG)

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates are extremely variable around the world. CRC is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both genders [1]. Many patients are cured with initial surgery for primary disease and postoperative chemotherapy. Nevertheless, recurrent locoregional or distant metastases occur in approximately 40% of patients with stage II and stage III CRC [2]. A significant proportion of CRC recurrences occur in a single location, such as pelvis, liver, or lung [3, 4]. Surgery may be curative in some patients with localized recurrent disease and has an impact on 5-year overall survival (OS), which is 27% among patients who undergo surgery vs. 6% in patients who do not [3, 4]. Therefore, accurate and early identification of recurrent and/or metastatic disease is a critical and challenging issue in terms of improving OS of CRC patients. The measurement of circulating carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is the most widely accepted test in clinical practice for screening for recurrent CRC. Additionally, periodic colonoscopy, ultrasound (US), and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) for localization of recurrent CRC in the early stages are often performed during follow-up. None of these imaging modalities is extremely accurate [5].

Keywords

Overall Survival Standardize Uptake Value National Comprehensive Cancer Network Advanced Rectal Cancer Primary Rectal Cancer 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg RM (2006) Intensive surveillance after stage II or III colorectal cancer: is it worth it? J Clin Oncol 24(3):330-331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goldberg RM, Fleming TR, Tangen CM et al (1998) Surgery for recurrent colon cancer: strategies for identifying resectable recurrence and success rates after resection. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, and the Southwest Oncology Group. Ann Intern Med 129(1):27-35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tepper JE, O’Connell M, Hollis D et al (2003) Analysis of surgical salvage after failure of primary therapy in rectal cancer: results from Intergroup Study 0114. J Clin Oncol 21(19):3623-3628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dirisamer A, Halpern BS, Flory D et al (2010) 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 73(2):324-328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Makis W, Kurzencwyg D, Hickeson M (2013) 18F-FDG PET/CT superior to serum CEA in detection of colorectal cancer and its recurrence. Clin Imaging 37(6):1094-1097CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panagiotidis E, Datseris IE, Rondogianni P et al (2014) Does CEA and CA 19-9 combined increase the likelihood of 18F-FDG in detecting recurrence in colorectal patients with negative CeCT? Nucl Med Commun 35(6):598-605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang C, Chen Y, Xue H et al (2009) Diagnostic value of FDG-PET in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 124(1):167-173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Y, Feng B, Zhang GL et al (2014) Value of 18F-FDG PET-CT in surveillance of postoperative colorectal cancer patients with various carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations. World J Gastroenterol 20(21):6608-6614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falk PM, Gupta NC, Thorson AG et al (1994) Positron emission tomography for preoperative staging of colorectal carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum 37(2):153-156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehner B, Schlag P, Strauss L et al (1990) [The value of positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of recurrent rectal cancer]. Zentralbl Chir 115(13):813-817PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruhlmann J, Schomburg A, Bender H et al (1997) Fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer patients studied in routine daily practice. Dis Colon Rectum 40(10):1195-1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strauss LG, Clorius JH, Schlag P et al (1989) Recurrence of colorectal tumors: PET evaluation. Radiology 170(2):329-332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yonekura Y, Benua RS, Brill AB et al (1982) Increased accumulation of 2-deoxy-2-[18F]Fluoro-D-glucose in liver metastases from colon carcinoma. J Nucl Med 23(12):1133-1137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arulampalam TH, Francis DL, Visvikis D et al (2004) FDG-PET for the pre-operative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases. Eur J Surg Oncol 30(3):286-291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosa F, Meimarakis G, Stahl A et al (2004) Colorectal cancer patients before resection of hepatic metastases. Impact of 18F-FDG PET on detecting extrahepatic disease. Nuklearmedizin 43(4):135-140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruers TJ, Langenhoff BS, Neeleman N et al (2002) Value of positron emission tomography with [F-18]fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol 20(2):388-395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strasberg SM, Dehdashti F, Siegel BA et al (2001) Survival of patients evaluated by FDG-PET before hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a prospective database study. Ann Surg 233(3):293-299CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalff V, Hicks RJ, Ware RE et al (2002) The clinical impact of 18F-FDG PET in patients with suspected or confirmed recurrence of colorectal cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med 43(4):492-499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Kelley B et al (2008) PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med 49(9):1451-1457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE et al (2000) A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med 41(7):1177-1189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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):613-620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tural D, Selcukbiricik F, Sager S et al (2014) PET-CT changes the management and improves outcome in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 10(1):121-126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Graham RA, Wang S, Catalano PJ, Haller DG (1998) Postsurgical surveillance of colon cancer: preliminary cost analysis of physician examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, chest x-ray, and colonoscopy. Ann Surg 228(1):59-63CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bleeker WA, Mulder NH, Hermans J et al (2001) Value and cost of follow-up after adjuvant treatment of patients with Dukes’ C colonic cancer. Br J Surg 88(1):101-106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tan E, Gouvas N, Nicholls RJ et al (2009) Diagnostic precision of carcinoembryonic antigen in the detection of recurrence of colorectal cancer. Surg Oncol 18(1):15-24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Flamen P, Hoekstra OS, Homans F et al (2001) Unexplained rising carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in the postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer: the utility of positron emission tomography (PET). Eur J Cancer 37(7):862-869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kyoto Y, Momose M, Kondo C et al (2010) Ability of 18F-FDG PET/CT to diagnose recurrent colorectal cancer in patients with elevated CEA concentrations. Ann Nucl Med 24(5):395-401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Libutti SK, Alexander HR Jr, Choyke P 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):779-786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ozkan E, Soydal C, Araz M et al (2012) The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in detecting colorectal cancer recurrence in patients with elevated CEA levels. Nucl Med Commun 33(4):395-402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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(4):636-43 (discussion 643-644)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mittal BR, Senthil R, Kashyap R et al (2011) 18F-FDG PET-CT in evaluation of postoperative colorectal cancer patients with rising CEA level. Nucl Med Commun 32(9):789-793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liu F Y, Chen JS, Changchien CR et al (2005) Utility of 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in managing patients of colorectal cancer with unexplained carcinoembryonic antigen elevation at different levels. Dis Colon Rectum 48(10):1900-1912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bu W, Wei R, Li J et al (2014) Association between carcinoembryonic antigen levels and the applied value of F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in post-operative recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncol Lett 8(6):2649-2653PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S, Ozkan ZG et al (2012) The utility of FDG-PET/CT as an effective tool for detecting recurrent colorectal cancer regardless of serum CEA levels. Ann Nucl Med 26(7):551-558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Choi EK, Yoo Ie R, Park HL et al (2012) Value of Surveillance 18F-FDG PET/CT in Colorectal Cancer: Comparison with Conventional Imaging Studies. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46(3):189-195CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chiewvit S, Jiranantanakorn T, Apisarnthanarak P et al (2013) Detection of recurrent colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET/CT comparison with contrast enhanced CT scan. J Med Assoc Thai 96(6):703-708PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lu YY, Chen JH, Chien CR et al (2013) Use of FDG-PET or PET/CT to detect recurrent colorectal cancer in patients with elevated CEA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(8):1039-1047CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peng NJ, Hu C, King TM et al (2013) Detection of resectable recurrences in colorectal cancer patients with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 28(6):479-487CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maas M, Rutten IJ, Nelemans PJ et al (2011) What is the most accurate whole-body imaging modality for assessment of local and distant recurrent disease in colorectal cancer? A metaanalysis: imaging for recurrent colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(8):1560-1571CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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(1):257-267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stuckle CA, Haegele KF, Jendreck M et al (2005) [Improvements in detection of rectal cancer recurrence by multiplanar reconstruction]. Radiologe 45(10):930-935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Metser U, You J, McSweeney S et al (2010) 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(3):766-771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Soyka JD, Veit-Haibach P, Strobel K et al (2008) Staging pathways in recurrent colorectal carcinoma: is contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT the diagnostic tool of choice? J Nucl Med 49(3):354-361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E et al (2009) 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. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 36(9):1388-1396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jiménez Londoño GA, Garcia Vicente AM, Sanchez Perez V et al (2014) 18F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced CT in the standard surveillance of high risk colorectal cancer patients. Eur J Radiol 83(12):2224-2230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tagliabue L (2013) The emerging role of FDG PET/CT in rectal cancer management: is it time to use the technique for early prognostication? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(5):652-656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Llamas-Elvira JM, Rodriguez-Fernandez A, Gutierrez-Sainz J et al (2007) Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34(6):859-867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Park IJ, Kim HC, Yu CS et al (2006) Efficacy of PET/CT in the accurate evaluation of primary colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 32(9):941-947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chen LB, Tong JL, Song HZ et al (2007) 18F-DG PET/CT in detection of recurrence and metastasis of colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol13(37):5025-5029CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Selvaggi F, Cuocolo A, Sciaudone G et al (2003) FGD-PET in the follow-up of recurrent colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 5(5):496-500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sobhani I, Tiret E, Lebtahi R et al (2008) Early detection of recurrence by 18FDG-PET in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 98(5):875-880CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gong J, Cao W, Zhang Z et al (2015) Diagnostic efficacy of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging in the detection of tumour recurrence and metastasis by comparison with 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography or computed tomography in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 3(25):128-135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Schmidt GP, Baur-Melnyk A, Haug A et al (2009) 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. Eur Radiol 19(6):1366-1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Titu LV, Nicholson AA, Hartley JE et al (2006) Routine follow-up by magnetic resonance imaging does not improve detection of resectable local recurrences from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 243(3):348-352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    de Geus-Oei LF, Vriens D, van Laarhoven HW et al (2009) Monitoring and predicting response to therapy with 18F-FDG PET in colorectal cancer: a systematic review. J Nucl Med 50(Suppl 1):43S-54SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cascini GL, Avallone A, Delrio P et al (2006) 18F-FDG PET is an early predictor of pathologic tumor response to preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer. J Nucl Med 47(8):1241-1248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Avallone A, Aloj L, Caraco C, Delrio P et al (2012) Early FDG PET response assessment of preoperative radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: correlation with long-term outcome. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39(12):1848-1857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Secondo Lastoria
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luigi Aloj
  • Corradina Caracò
  • Raffaele Farese
  • Anna Morisco
  1. 1.Nuclear Medicine, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Radiant and Metabolic TherapyIstituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS Fondazione G. PascaleNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations