• Journal of Gastric Cancer
• /
• v.8 no.4
• /
• pp.250-255
• /
• 2008

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for detecting the lymph node (LN) metastasis of gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: 119 patients (M : F=89 : 30; mean age: 64) with gastric cancer were referred for preoperative FDG-PET/CT scanning and spiral enhanced abdominal pelvic CT from June 2006 to July 2008, and these were the subjects of our study. All the patients underwent curative radical gastrectomy and lymph node dissection. A final diagnosis was made for all the patients by the histology of the surgical specimens. Results: Both PET/CT and enhanced CT showed similar sensitivity for detecting regional lymph node metastasis (32.6% vs 39.5%, respectively). PET/CT was more accurate than enhanced CT for detecting regional lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 63.0%, respectively), and PET/CT showed better specificity (86.8% vs 76.3, respectively) and a better positive predictive value (PPV) (58.3% vs 48.6%, respectively). PET/CT showed better specificity (98.0% vs 88.2%, respectively) and accuracy (79.4% vs 73.9%, respectively) than enhanced CT for detecting early gastric cancer. PET/CT showed better specificity (64.0% vs 52.0%, respectively), a better PPV (60.9% vs 57.1%), a better negative predictive value (NPV) (48.5% vs 46.4%, respectively) and better accuracy (53.6% vs 51.8%, respectively) than enhanced CT for detecting advanced gastric cancer. Conclusion: FDG-PET/CT is more usefulness than enhanced CT for making the preoperative diagnosis of regional LN metastases from gastric cancers.

• Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.16-22
• /
• 2006

Purpose: Malignant Mixed Mullerian Tumor (MMMT) of the uterine corpus is one of the very uncommon and the most lethal tumors in the uterus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of FDG PET in detecting distant metastasis and residual and/or recurrent disease. Methods: Ten patients who underwent FDG PET for detecting distant metastasis and recurrence were included. focal FDG accumulation was regarded as abnormal. We also reviewed serum CA 125 levels, anatomical images, and histopathoiogical examination. Results: Three patients of 10 FDG PET showed abnormal FDG uptake. One had high serum CA 125 levels and high fractions of carcinomatous element on histopathologic examination. FDG PET showed metastatic lesions in unexpected locations, which could not be detected by anatomical images. Another had normal serum CA 125 levels with high sarcomatous element and CT could only detect a few lesions. The other had high serum CA 125 levels and also had high carcinomatous element. Seven patients who had no abnormal uptake on FDG PET had no clinical evidence of recurrence during the follow up period ($51.7{\pm}12.2$ months). The mean disease free intervals of these 7 patients were $36.4{\pm}6.0$ months. Two patients with abnormal findings had never become disease-free condition during the follow up period ($6.0{\pm}4.2$ months. Conclusion: FDG PET could be a useful modality for unexpected distant metastasis and follow up tool in patients with MMMT.

• Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.526-534
• /
• 2009

Purpose: We retrospectively investigated the diagnostic performance of $^{18}F$-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/CT for cancer detection in asymptomatic health-check examinees. Materials and Methods: This study consisted of 5091 PET or PET/CT conducted as part of annual health examination at one hospital from March 1998 to February 2008. To find the incidence of cancers, medical records of the subjects were thoroughly reviewed for a follow-up period of one year. The patterns of formal readings of PET and PET/CT were analyzed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for cancer detection. The histopathology and stage of the cancers were evaluated in relation to the results of PET. Results: Eighty-six cancers (1.7%) were diagnosed within one year after PET or PET/CT. When PET and PET/CT results were combined, the sensitivity was 48.8% and specificity was 81.1% for cancer detection. PET only had a sensitivity of 46.2% and a specificity of 81.4%, and PET/CT only had a sensitivity of 75.0% and a specificity of 78.5% respectively. There were no significant differences in cancer site, stage and histopathology between PET positive and PET negative cancers. In 19.3% of formal readings of PET and PET/CT, further evaluation to exclude malignancy or significant disease was recommended. Head and neck area and upper gastrointestinal tract were commonly recommended sites for further evaluation. Conclusions: PET and PET/CT showed moderate performance for detecting cancers in asymptomatic adults in this study. More experience and further investigation are needed to overcome limitations of PET and PET/CT for cancer screening.