DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of FDG-PET/CT for Detection of Incidental Pre-Malignant and Malignant Colonic Lesions - Correlation with Colonoscopic and Histopathologic Findings

  • Kunawudhi, Anchisa (Division of Precision Medicine, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School) ;
  • Wong, Alexandra K (Division of Precision Medicine, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School) ;
  • Alkasab, Tarik K (Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School) ;
  • Mahmood, Umar (Division of Precision Medicine, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School)
  • Published : 2016.08.01

Abstract

Purpose: We evaluated all PET/CTs acquired for patients without a primary diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and compared results for those who had subsequent colonoscopy within 6 months, to assess the accuracy of FDG PET/CT for detection of incidental pre-malignant polyps and malignant colon cancers. Materials and Methods: Medical records of 9,545 patients who underwent F-18 FDG PET/CT studies over 3.5 years were retrospectively reviewed. Due to pre-existing diagnosis of colorectal cancer, 818 patients were excluded. Of the remainder, 157 patients had colonoscopy within 6 months (79 males; mean age 61). We divided the colon into 4 regions and compared PET/CT results for each region with colonoscopy and histopathologic findings. True positive lesions included colorectal cancer, villous adenoma, tubulovillous adenoma, tubular adenoma and serrated hyperplastic polyp/hyperplastic polyposis. Results: Of 157 patients, 44 had incidental colonic uptake on PET/CT (28%). Of those, 25 had true positive (TP) uptake, yielding a 48% positive predictive value (PPV); 9% (4/44) were adenocarcinoma. There were 23 false positive (FP) lesions of which 4 were hyperplastic polyp, one was juvenile polyp and 7 were explained by diverticulitis. Fifty eight patients had false negative PET scans but colonoscopy revealed true pre-malignant and malignant pathology, yielding 23% sensitivity. The specificity, negiative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy were 96%, 90% and 87%, respectively. The average SUVmax values of TP, FP and FN lesions were 7.25, 6.11 and 2.76, respectively. There were no significant difference between SUVmax of TP lesions and FP lesions (p>0.95) but significantly higher than in FN lesions (p<0.001). The average size (by histopathology and colonoscopy) of TP lesions was 18.1 mm, statistically different from that of FN lesions which was 5.9 mm (p<0.001). Fifty-one percent of FN lesions were smaller than 5 mm (29/57) and 88% smaller than 10 mm (50/57). Conclusions: The high positive predictive value of incidental focal colonic FDG uptake of 48% for colonic neoplasia suggests that colonoscopy follow-up is warranted with this finding. We observed a low sensitivity of standardly acquired FDG-PET/CT for detecting small polyps, especially those less than 5 mm. Clinician and radiologists should be aware of the high PPV of focal colonic uptake reflecting pre-malignant and malignant lesions, and the need for appropriate follow up.

Keywords

PET/CT;screening;colon cancer;pre-malignant;incidental findings

References

  1. Friedland S, Soetikno R, Carlisle M, et al (2005). 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography has limited sensitivity for colonic adenoma and early stage colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc, 61, 395-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02775-0
  2. Fuertes J, Montagut C, Bullich S, et al (2015). Incidental focal uptake in colorectal location on oncologic (1)(8)FDG PET and PET/CT studies: histopathological findings and clinical significances. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol, 34, 95-101.
  3. Gutman F, Alberini JL, Wartski M, et al (2005). Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 185, 495-500. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.185.2.01850495
  4. Keyzer C, Dhaene B, Blocklet D, et al (2015). Colonoscopic Findings in Patients With Incidental Colonic Focal FDG Uptake. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 204, 586-91. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12817
  5. Lee JC, Hartnett GF, Hughes BG, et al (2009). The segmental distribution and clinical significance of colorectal fluorodeoxyglucose uptake incidentally detected on PETCT. Nucl Med Commun, 30, 333-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32832999fa
  6. 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, 1045-53. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365521.2014.992363
  7. Nakajo M, Jinnouchi S, Tashiro Y, et al (2009). Effect of clinicopathologic factors on visibility of colorectal polyps with FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 192, 754-60. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1304
  8. Peng J, He Y, Xu J, et al (2011). Detection of incidental colorectal tumours with 18F-labelled 2- fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis, 13, 374-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02727.x
  9. Prabhakar HB, Sahani DV, Fischman AJ, et al (2007). Bowel hot spots at PET-CT. Radiographics, 27, 145-59. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.271065080
  10. Purandare NC, Gawade SK, Puranik AD, et al (2012). Etiology and significance of incidentally detected focal colonic uptake on FDG PET/CT. Indian J Radiol Imaging, 22, 260-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.111476
  11. Rainis T, Kaidar-Person O, Keren D, et al (2014). Correlation between incidental FDG PET/CT colorectal observations and endoscopic and histopathological results. Oncol Lett, 7, 479-82. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2013.1702
  12. Rosenbaum SJ, Lind T, Antoch G, et al (2006). False-positive FDG PET uptake-the role of PET/CT. Eur Radiol, 16, 1054-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-0088-y
  13. Salazar Andia G, Prieto Soriano A, Ortega Candil A, et al (2011). Clinical relevance of incidental finding of focal uptakes in the colon during (18)F-FDG PET/CT studies in oncology patients without known colorectal carcinoma and evaluation of the impact on management. Rev Esp Med Nucl. 31, 15-21.
  14. Seivert M, Plomteux O, Colard A, et al (2014). Endoscopic findings in case of incidental colonic uptake in PET-CT how to improve PET-CT specificity? Acta Gastroenterol Belg, 77, 413-7.
  15. Simsek FS, Ispiroglu M, Tasdemir B, et al (2015). What approach should we take for the incidental finding of increased 18F-FDG uptake foci in the colon on PET/CT? Nucl Med Commun, 36, 1195-201. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000388
  16. Sone Y, Sobajima A, Kawachi T, et al (2014). Ability of 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT to detect incidental cancer. Br J Radiol, 87, 20140030. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140030
  17. Stewart BW, Wild CP (2014). World cancer report 2014, Lyon, IARC Press.
  18. Tatlidil R, Jadvar H, Bading JR, et al (2002). Incidental colonic fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: correlation with colonoscopic and histopathologic findings. Radiol, 224, 783-7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2243011214
  19. 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, 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2887-3
  20. van Kouwen MC, Nagengast FM, Jansen JB, et al (2005). 2-(18F)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography detects clinical relevant adenomas of the colon: a prospective study. J Clin Oncol, 23, 3713-7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.401
  21. 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, 1454-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24885