nach oben

01.04.2013 | Original Article

A comparative study of FDG PET/CT and enhanced multi-detector CT for detecting liver metastasis according to the size and location

verfasst von: Jung Mi Park, Il Young Kim, Sang Won Kim, Sang Mi Lee, Hyun Gi Kim, Shin Young Kim, Hyung Chul Shin

Erschienen in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine | Ausgabe 3/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosability between ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT and enhanced multi-detector CT (MDCT) for the detection of liver metastasis (LM) according to the size and location in liver and to evaluate standard maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of all liver metastatic lesions.

Materials and methods

One hundred two consecutive patients with malignancy who underwent both FDG PET/CT and MDCT for LM evaluation were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 56 patients with LM were enrolled in this study. LM was confirmed by follow-up imaging studies after at least 6 months or by histopathology. FDG PET/CT and MDCT images were visually analyzed using three-point scale by the consensus of two radiologists and two nuclear medicine physicians. The size and location (central vs. sub-capsular) of the all liver lesions were evaluated using MDCT images. Furthermore, SUVmax of all liver lesions on FDG PET/CT images were calculated.

Results

A total of 146 liver lesions were detected by FDG PET/CT and MDCT and 142 of the lesions were diagnosed as LM. The detection rates of MDCT and FDG PET/CT for LM by visual analysis were 77 and 78 %, respectively. There was no significant difference of detection rate according to the overall location and size of the lesions. However, FDG PET/CT was more sensitive than MDCT for detecting small and sub-capsular LM. The detection rate of FDG PET/CT for LM was 68 % by the cutoff SUVmax of 2.7.

Conclusions

Although the diagnosabilities of MDCT and FDG PET/CT for detecting LM were comparable, FDG PET/CT is superior to MDCT for detecting small LM located in the sub-capsular portion of liver.

Numminen K, et al. Preoperative assessment of focal liver lesions: multidetector computed tomography challenges magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(1):9–15.PubMedCrossRef

Ward J, et al. Liver metastases in candidates for hepatic resection: comparison of helical CT and gadolinium- and SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2005;237(1):170–80.PubMedCrossRef

Blakeborough A, et al. Hepatic lesion detection at MR imaging: a comparative study with four sequences. Radiology. 1997;203(3):759–65.PubMed

Furuhata T, et al. Efficacy of SPIO-MR imaging in the diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal carcinomas. Dig Surg. 2003;20(4):321–5.PubMedCrossRef

Kuszyk BS, et al. Portal-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT for the detection of malignant hepatic tumors: sensitivity based on comparison with intraoperative and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166(1):91–5.PubMedCrossRef

Semelka RC, et al. Liver metastases: comparison of current MR techniques and spiral CT during arterial portography for detection in 20 surgically staged cases. Radiology. 1999;213(1):86–91.PubMed

Valls C, et al. Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: preoperative detection and assessment of resectability with helical CT. Radiology. 2001;218(1):55–60.PubMed

Vogl TJ, et al. Preoperative evaluation of malignant liver tumors: comparison of unenhanced and SPIO (Resovist)-enhanced MR imaging with biphasic CTAP and intraoperative US. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(2):262–72.PubMed

Abdel-Nabi H, et al. Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: correlation with histopathologic and CT findings. Radiology. 1998;206(3):755–60.PubMed

10.

Blokhuis TJ, et al. Results of radio frequency ablation of primary and secondary liver tumors: long-term follow-up with computed tomography and positron emission tomography-18F-deoxyfluoroglucose scanning. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 2004;241:93–7.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Delbeke D, et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med. 1997;38(8):1196–201.PubMed

12.

Selzner M, et al. Does the novel PET/CT imaging modality impact on the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver? Ann Surg. 2004;240(6):1027–34. discussion 1035–6.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Cohade C, et al. Direct comparison of (18)F-FDG PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44(11):1797–803.PubMed

14.

Wiering B, et al. The impact of fluor-18-deoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the management of colorectal liver metastases. Cancer. 2005;104(12):2658–70.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Rappeport ED, et al. Contrast-enhanced FDG-PET/CT vs. SPIO-enhanced MRI vs. FDG-PET vs. CT in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a prospective study with intraoperative confirmation. Acta Radiol. 2007;48(4):369–78.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Scott DJ, et al. Dual phase helical CT versus portal venous phase CT for the detection of colorectal liver metastases: correlation with intra-operative sonography, surgical and pathological findings. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(3):235–42.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Kim SH, et al. Ferucarbotran-enhanced MRI versus triple-phase MDCT for the preoperative detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(4):1069–76.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Ba-Ssalamah A, et al. Detection of focal hepatic lesions: comparison of unenhanced and SHU 555 A-enhanced MR imaging versus biphasic helical CTAP. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;11(6):665–72.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Reimer P, et al. Hepatic lesion detection and characterization: value of nonenhanced MR imaging, superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MR imaging, and spiral CT-ROC analysis. Radiology. 2000;217(1):152–8.PubMed

20.

Ward J, et al. Hepatic lesion detection: comparison of MR imaging after the administration of superparamagnetic iron oxide with dual-phase CT by using alternative-free response receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology. 1999;210(2):459–66.PubMed

21.

Brix G, et al. Quantification of [(18)F]FDG uptake in the normal liver using dynamic PET: impact and modeling of the dual hepatic blood supply. J Nucl Med. 2001;42(8):1265–73.PubMed

22.

Lee JW, et al. Detection of hepatic metastases using dual-time-point FDG PET/CT scans in patients with colorectal cancer. Mol Imaging Biol. 2011;13(3):565–72.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Bipat S, et al. Colorectal liver metastases: CT, MR imaging, and PET for diagnosis–meta-analysis. Radiology. 2005;237(1):123–31.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Kinkel K, et al. Detection of hepatic metastases from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract by using noninvasive imaging methods (US, CT, MR imaging, PET): a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2002;224(3):748–56.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Fong Y, et al. Utility of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography scanning on selection of patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Am J Surg. 1999;178(4):282–7.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Imdahl A, et al. Impact of 18F-FDG-positron emission tomography for decision making in colorectal cancer recurrences. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2000;385(2):129–34.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Rydzewski B, et al. Usefulness of intraoperative sonography for revealing hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients selected for surgery after undergoing FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(2):353–8.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Dirisamer A, et al. Dual-time-point FDG-PET/CT for the detection of hepatic metastases. Mol Imaging Biol. 2008;10(6):335–40.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Au-Yeung AW, Luk WH, Lo AX. Imaging features of colorectal liver metastasis in FDG PET-CT: a retrospective correlative analysis between CT attenuation and FDG uptake. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(4):403–7.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: A comparative study of FDG PET/CT and enhanced multi-detector CT for detecting liver metastasis according to the size and location
verfasst von: Jung Mi Park
Il Young Kim
Sang Won Kim
Sang Mi Lee
Hyun Gi Kim
Shin Young Kim
Hyung Chul Shin
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2013
Verlag: Springer Japan
Erschienen in: Annals of Nuclear Medicine / Ausgabe 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0914-7187
Elektronische ISSN: 1864-6433
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-012-0677-1