Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of CT and $^{18}F-FDG$ PET for Detecting Peritoneal Metastasis on the Preoperative Evaluation for Gastric Carcinoma

  • Lim, Joon-Seok (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Myeong-Jin (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yun, Mi-Jin (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Oh, Young-Taik (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Joo-Hee (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Hwang, Hee-Sung (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Mi-Suk (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Cha, Seoung-Whan (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jong-Doo (Department of Nuclear Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Noh, Sung-Hoon (Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Yoo, Hyung-Sik (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Ki-Whang (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Published : 2006.12.31
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of CT and $^{18}F-FDG$ PET for detecting peritoneal metastasis in patients with gastric carcinoma. Materials and Methods: One-hundred-twelve patients who underwent a histologic confirmative exam or treatment (laparotomy, n=107; diagnostic laparoscopy, n=4; peritoneal washing cytology, n=1) were retrospectively enrolled. All the patients underwent CT and $^{18}F-FDG$ PET scanning for their preoperative evaluation. The sensitivities, specificities and accuracies of CT and $^{18}F-FDG$ PET imaging for the detection of peritoneal metastasis were calculated and then compared using Fisher's exact probability test (p<0.05), on the basis of the original preoperative reports. In addition, two board-certified radiologists and two board-certified nuclear medicine physicians independently reviewed the CT and PET scans, respectively. A receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic performance of CT and $^{18}F-FDG$ PET imaging for detecting peritoneal metastasis. Results: Based on the original preoperative reports, CT and $^{18}F-FDG$ PET showed sensitivities of 76.5% and 35.3% (p=0.037), specificities of 91.6% and 98.9% (p=0.035), respectively, and equal accuracies of 89.3% (p=1.0). The receptor operating characteristics curve analysis showed a significantly higher diagnostic performance for CT (Az=0.878) than for PET (Az=0.686) (p=0.004). The interobserver agreement for detecting peritoneal metastasis was good (${\kappa}$ value = 0.684) for CT and moderate (${\kappa}$ value = 0.460) for PET. Conclusion: For the detection of peritoneal metastasis, CT was more sensitive and showed a higher diagnostic performance than PET, although CT had a relatively lower specificity than did PET.

Keywords

References

  1. Champault G, Barrat C. Laparoscopy in the staging of cancer of the stomach. J Chir (Paris) 1999;136:150-155
  2. Davies J, Chalmers AG, Sue-Ling HM, May J, Miller GV, Martin IG, et al. Spiral computed tomography and operative staging of gastric carcinoma: a comparison with histopathological staging. Gut 1997;41:314-309 https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.41.3.314
  3. Dux M, Richter GM, Hansmann J, Kuntz C, Kauffmann GW. Helical hydro-CT for diagnosis and staging of gastric carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23:913-922 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199911000-00015
  4. Sendler A, Dittler HJ, Feussner H, Nekarda H, Bollschweiler E, Fink U, et al. Preoperative staging of gastric cancer as precondition for multimodal treatment. World J Surg 1995;19:501-508 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00294710
  5. Low RN, Barone RM, Lacey C, Sigeti JS, Alzate GD, Sebrechts CP. Peritoneal tumor: MR imaging with dilute oral barium and intravenous gadolinium-containing contrast agents compared with unenhanced MR imaging and CT. Radiology 1997;204: 513-520 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.204.2.9240546
  6. Gryspeerdt S, Clabout L, Van Hoe L, Berteloot P, Vergote IB. Intraperitoneal contrast material combined with CT for detection of peritoneal metastases of ovarian cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1998;19:434-437
  7. Boudiaf M, Bedda S, Soyer P, Panis Y, Zidi S, Kardache M, et al. Preoperative evaluation of gastric adenocarcinomas: comparison of CT results with surgical and patholgic results. Ann Chir 1999;53:115-122
  8. Rohren EM, Turkington TG, Coleman RE. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 2004;231:305-332 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312021185
  9. Park DH, Kim KH, Park SY, Lee BH, Choi CW, Chin SY. Diagnosis of recurrent uterine cervical cancer: computed tomography versus positron emission tomography. Korean J Radiol 2000;1:51-55 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2000.1.1.51
  10. Kluge R, Schmidt F, Caca K, Barthel H, Hesse S, Georgi P, et al. Positron emission tomography with [(18)F] fluoro-2-deoxy-Dglucose for diagnosis and staging of bile duct cancer. Hepatology 2001;33:1029-1035 https://doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2001.23912
  11. Tanaka T, Kawai Y, Kanai M, Taki Y, Nakamoto Y, Takabayashi A. Usefulness of FDG-positron emission tomography in diagnosing peritoneal recurrence of colorectal cancer. Am J Surg 2002;184:433-436 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(02)01004-8
  12. Turlakow A, Yeung HW, Salmon AS, Macapinlac HA, Larson SM. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1407-1412
  13. Buy JN, Moss AA, Ghossain MA, Sciot C, Malbec L, Vadrot D, et al. Peritoneal implants from ovarian tumors: CT findings. Radiology 1988;169:691-694 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.169.3.3186993
  14. Halvorsen RA Jr, Panushka C, Oakley GJ, Letourneau JG, Adcock LL. Intraperitoneal contrast material improves the CT detection of peritoneal metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;157:37-40 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.157.1.2048534
  15. Walkey MM, Friedman AC, Sohotra P, Radecki PD. CT manifestations of peritoneal carcinomatosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;150:1035-1041 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.150.5.1035
  16. Coakley FV, Choi PH, Gougoutas CA, Pothuri B, Venkatraman E, Chi D, et al. Peritoneal metastases: detection with spiral CT in patients with ovarian cancer. Radiology 2002;223:495-499 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2232011081
  17. Lin EC, Lear J, Quaife RA. Metastatic peritoneal seeding patterns demonstrated by FDG positron emission tomographic imaging. Clin Nucl Med 2001;26:249-250 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003072-200103000-00020
  18. Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1981;212-236
  19. Tang Y, Yamashita Y, Arakawa A, Namimoto T, Mitsuzaki K, Abe Y, et al. Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma arising in cirrhotic livers: comparison of gadolinium- and ferumoxidesenhanced MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1547- 1554 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.172.6.10350287
  20. Blakeborough A, Ward J, Wilson D, Griffiths M, Kajiya Y, Guthrie JA, et al. Hepatic lesion detection at MR imaging: a comparative study with four sequences. Radiology 1997;203:759-765 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.203.3.9169701
  21. Wang PH, Liu RS, Li YF, Ng HT, Yuan CC. Whole-body PET with (fluorine-18)-2-deoxyglucose for detecting recurrent primary serous peritoneal carcinoma: An initial report. Gynecol Oncol 2000;77:44-47 https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.5738
  22. Sussman SK, Halvorsen RA Jr, Illescas FF, Cohan RH, Saeed M, Silverman PM, et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma: CT versus surgical staging. Radiology 1988;167:335-340 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.167.2.3357941
  23. Prayer L, Kainz C, Kramer J, Stiglbauer R, Schurawitzki H, Baldt M, et al. CT and MR accuracy in the detection of tumor recurrence in patients treated for ovarian cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:626-632 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199307000-00021
  24. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, Becker K, Link T, Siewert JR, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:288-295 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-002-1029-5
  25. Yoshioka T, Yamaguchi K, Kubota K, Saginoya T, Yamazaki T, Ido T, et al. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET in patients with a, metastatic, or recurrent gastric cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:690- 699
  26. Ming SC. Gastric carcinoma. A pathobiological classification. Cancer 1977;39:2475-2485 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197706)39:6<2475::AID-CNCR2820390626>3.0.CO;2-L
  27. Noda S, Soejima K, Inokuchi K. Clinicopathological analysis of the intestinal type and diffuse type of gastric carcinoma. Jpn J Surg 1980;10:277-283 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02468788
  28. Sugano H, Nakamura K, Kato Y. Pathological studies of human gastric cancer. Acta Pathol Jpn 1982;32 Suppl 2:329-347
  29. De Potter T, Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Penninckx F, Filez L, Bormans G, et al. Whole-body PET with FDG for the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:525-529 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-001-0743-8