TY - JOUR
T1 - The value of PET/CT for preoperative staging of advanced gastric cancer
T2 - Comparison with contrast-enhanced CT
AU - Kim, Eun Young
AU - Lee, Won Jae
AU - Choi, Dongil
AU - Lee, Soon Jin
AU - Choi, Joon Young
AU - Kim, Byung Tae
AU - Kim, Hyung Sik
PY - 2011/8
Y1 - 2011/8
N2 - Aim: To date, no data are available on the use of PET/CT for preoperative staging of gastric cancer. We attempted to evaluate the value of PET/CT for preoperative staging of advanced gastric cancer, and to compare the use of PET/CT with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). Materials and methods: We analyzed PET/CT of 78 patients with surgically proven advanced gastric cancer who had undergone preoperative CECT. Qualitative analysis was conducted by assessing the presence of primary tumors and metastases with PET/CT and CECT. Results: Among 71 patients who underwent a gastrectomy, 69 primary tumors (93%) were diagnosed by PET/CT, while 64 primary tumors (90%) were detected by CECT (p = 0.55). For regional lymph node metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of PET/CT vs. CECT were 41% vs. 25% (p = 0.00019), 100% vs. 92% (p = 0.31), 100% vs. 98% (p = 0.46), 26% vs. 42% (p = 0.14), and 51% vs. 72% (p = 0.00089), respectively. Conclusion: Overall, PET/CT showed comparable diagnostic performance to CECT in diagnosing primary tumors and regional lymph node metastases, though PET/CT was inferior to CECT for the sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosing regional lymph node metastases. Nevertheless, PET/CT would be useful when CECT findings were equivocal due to its high positive predictability.
AB - Aim: To date, no data are available on the use of PET/CT for preoperative staging of gastric cancer. We attempted to evaluate the value of PET/CT for preoperative staging of advanced gastric cancer, and to compare the use of PET/CT with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). Materials and methods: We analyzed PET/CT of 78 patients with surgically proven advanced gastric cancer who had undergone preoperative CECT. Qualitative analysis was conducted by assessing the presence of primary tumors and metastases with PET/CT and CECT. Results: Among 71 patients who underwent a gastrectomy, 69 primary tumors (93%) were diagnosed by PET/CT, while 64 primary tumors (90%) were detected by CECT (p = 0.55). For regional lymph node metastasis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of PET/CT vs. CECT were 41% vs. 25% (p = 0.00019), 100% vs. 92% (p = 0.31), 100% vs. 98% (p = 0.46), 26% vs. 42% (p = 0.14), and 51% vs. 72% (p = 0.00089), respectively. Conclusion: Overall, PET/CT showed comparable diagnostic performance to CECT in diagnosing primary tumors and regional lymph node metastases, though PET/CT was inferior to CECT for the sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosing regional lymph node metastases. Nevertheless, PET/CT would be useful when CECT findings were equivocal due to its high positive predictability.
KW - Advanced gastric cancer
KW - PET/CT
KW - Preoperative staging
KW - Tomography
KW - X-ray computed
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/80052161850
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.005
DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.02.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 20226612
AN - SCOPUS:80052161850
SN - 0720-048X
VL - 79
SP - 183
EP - 188
JO - European Journal of Radiology
JF - European Journal of Radiology
IS - 2
ER -
