Etiology and significance of incidentally detected focal colonic uptake on FDG PET/CT

 

PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background: Incidental colonic uptake of 18F-flurodeoxyglucose (FDG) is not an infrequent finding encountered during whole body positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. Almost all studies on this topic are in Western populations, which have a markedly different epidemiological profile for colorectal premalignant and malignant conditions as compared to that of the Indian subcontinent. Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess the etiology of incidentally detected focal FDG uptake in the colon by comparing it with colonoscopy and histopathology. Materials and Methods: Electronic medical records of patients who underwent FDG PET/computed tomography (CT) at our institution for a 2½-year period from January 2009 to July 2011 were reviewed. There were 32 out of 9000 (0.35%) patients whose PET/CT reports mentioned incidental focal colonic FDG uptake, of which 24 patients subsequently underwent colonoscopy. Lesions which appeared neoplastic on colonoscopy were confirmed with histopathology obtained after biopsy or surgery. Colonoscopy and pathology findings were considered as gold standard. Results: Among the 24 patients who underwent a colonoscopy, 3 patients had normal findings (12.5%). A positive colonoscopy was noted in 21 patients (87.5%) with the lesion coinciding with the location described in the PET/CT report. Adenomatous polyps were detected in 12 patients (37.5%), whereas in 8 patients (25%) malignant lesions were confirmed [adenocarcinoma n = 5, non-Hodgkin′s lymphoma (NHL) n = 2, malignant melanoma n = 1]. In one patient, colonic uptake was diagnosed as inflammatory. The mean standardized uptake value _max (SUV _max ) for the 12 premalignant lesions was 16.9 ± 9.6 (range 7.5-37.4) and the mean SUV max for the 8 malignant lesions was 12.9 ± 5.5 (range 6.7-21.6). The difference in SUV _max between the premalignant adenomatous polyps and the malignant lesions was not statistically significant (P = 0.316). Conclusions: Our study shows that a significant proportion of patients (62.5%, 20/32) showing an incidental focal FDG uptake will harbor premalignant (adenomatous polyps) or malignant lesions, and further evaluation with colonoscopy and biopsy is warranted in such cases.

Publication History

Article published online:
04 October 2021

© 2012. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

• References

• 1 Bar-Shalom R, Valdivia AY, Blaufox MD. PET imaging in oncology. Semin Nucl Med 2000;30:150-85.
• 2 Kluetz PG, Meltzer CC, Villemagne VL. Combined PET⁄CT Imaging in Oncology. Impact on Patient Management. Clin Positron Imaging 2000;3:223-30.
• 3 Antoch G, Vogt FM, Freudenberg LS, Nazaradeh F, Goehde SC, Barkhausen J, et al. Whole- body dual- modality PET/CT and whole body MRI for tumor staging in oncology. JAMA 2003;290:3199-206.
• 4 Engel H, Steinert H, Buck A, Berthold T, Huch Boni RA, von Schulthess. Whole-body PET: Physiological and artifactual fluorodeoxyglucose accumulations. J Nucl Med 1996;37:441-6.
• 5 Liu Y, Ghesani NV, Zuckier LS. Physiology and pathophysiology of incidental findings detected on FDG-PET Scintigraphy. Semin Nucl Med 2010;40:294-315.
• 6 Cook GJ, Fogelman I, Maisey MN. Normal physiological and benign pathological variants of 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning: Potential for error in interpretation. Semin Nucl Med 1996;26:308-14.
• 7 Shreve PD, Anzai Y, Wahl RL. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: Physiologic and benign variants. Radio Graphics 1999;19:61-77.
• 8 Kim S, Chung JK, Kim BT, Kim SJ, Jeong JM, Lee DS, et al. Relationship between Gastrointestinal F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose Accumulation and Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Whole-Body PET. Clin Posit Imaging 1999;2:273-80.
• 9 Tatlidil R, Jadvar H, Bading JR, Conti PS. Incidental colonic fluoroglucose uptake: Correlation with colonoscopic and histopathologic findings. Radiology 2002;224:783-7.
• 10 Pandit-Taskar N, Schoder H, Gonen M, Larson SM, Yeung HW. Clinical significance of unexplained abnormal focal FDG uptake in the abdomen during whole-body PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1143-7.
• 11 Israel O, Yefremov N, Bar-Shalom R, Kagana O, Frenkel A, Keidar Z, et al. PET ⁄ CT detection of unexpected gastrointestinal foci of 18F-FDG uptake: Incidence, localization patterns, and clinical significance. J Nucl Med 2005;46:758-62.
• 12 Kei PL, Vikram R, Yeung HW, Stroehlein JR, Macapinlac HA. Incidental Finding of Focal FDG Uptake in the Bowel During PET/CT: CT Features and correlation with histopathologic results. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:W401-6.
• 13 Kamel EM, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, Schiesser M, Fried M, Padberg B, et al. Significance of incidental 18F-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET ⁄ CT: Correlation with endoscopic and histopathologic results. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1804-10.
• 14 Gutman F, Alberini JL, Wartski M, Vilian D, Le Stanc E, Sarandi F, et al. Incidental colonic focal lesions detected by FDG PET ⁄ CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185: 495-500.
• 15 Even-Sapir E, Lerman H, Gutman M, Lievshitz G, Zuriel L, Polliack A, et al. The presentation of malignant tumours and pre-malignant lesions incidentally found on PET-CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:541-52.
• 16 Weston BR, Iyer RB, Qiao W, Lee JH, Bresalier RS, Ross WA. Ability of integrated positron emission and computed tomography to detect significant colonic pathology: The experience of a tertiary cancer center. Cancer 2010;116:1454-61.
• 17 Peng J, He Y, Xu J, Sheng J, Cai S, Zhang Z. 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 2011;13:e374-8.
• 18 Treglia G, Calcagni ML, Rufini V, Leccisotti L, Meduri GM, Spitilli MG, et al. Clinical significance of incidental focal colorectal (18) F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake: Our experience and a review of the literature. Colorectal Dis 2012;14:174-80.
• 19 Salazar Andia G, Prieto Soriano A, Ortega Candil A, Cabrera Martin MN, González Roiz C, Ortiz Zapata JJ, et al. 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 2012;31:15-21.
• 20 Mohandas KM, Desai DC. Epidemiology of digestive tract cancers in India. V. Large and small bowel. Indian J Gastroenterol 1999;18:118-21.
• 21 van Kouwen MC, Nagengast FM, Jansen JB, Oyen WJ, Drenth JP. 2-(18F)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography detects clinical relevant adenomas of the colon: A prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3713-7.
• 22 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O′Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, et al. Prevention of colorectal-cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977-81.
• 23 Chen YK, Kao CH, Liao AC, Shen YY, Su CT. Colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic adults: The role of FDG PET scan. Anticancer Res 2003;23:4357-61.
• 24 Terauchi T, Murano T, Daisaki H, Kanou D, Shodha H, Kakinuma R, et al. Evaluation of whole body cancer screening using 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography: A preliminary report. Ann Nucl Med 2008;22:379-85.