Truant S, Huglo D, Hebbar M, Ernst O, Steinling M, Pruvot F-R
Department of Digestive and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital, Hospital Huriez, 59037 Lille Cedex, France.
Br J Surg. 2005 Mar;92(3):362-9. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4843.
The aim of this study was to assess the additional value of information provided by positron emission tomography (PET) with [(18)F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) over that provided by computed tomography (CT) in patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
Between October 2001 and November 2002, a prospective double-blind comparison of preoperative FDG-PET and thoracoabdominal CT was performed in 53 patients with potentially resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. All resected metastases were subjected to histological examination.
Histological examination confirmed the presence of malignant or benign lesions detected by PET and/or CT in 95 per cent of instances. Overall sensitivity (78 per cent) and accuracy (88 per cent) of PET were equivalent to those of CT (76 and 86 per cent respectively). The sensitivity of PET was equivalent to that of CT for hepatic sites (both 79 per cent), but was superior for extrahepatic abdominal sites (63 and 25 per cent respectively). PET provided additional information in five patients, mainly by revealing abdominal extrahepatic metastases, but falsely upstaged three patients.
Whole-body FDG-PET may identify unrecognized extrahepatic metastases in patients with potentially resectable liver metastases imaged by CT. However, additional information provided by PET is not as reliable as suggested by earlier retrospective studies.
本研究旨在评估正电子发射断层扫描(PET)联合[(18)F]氟-2-脱氧-D-葡萄糖(FDG)所提供的信息相对于计算机断层扫描(CT)在可切除的结直肠癌肝转移患者中的附加价值。
2001年10月至2002年11月,对53例有可能切除的结直肠癌肝转移患者进行了术前FDG-PET与胸腹部CT的前瞻性双盲比较。所有切除的转移灶均进行了组织学检查。
组织学检查证实,在95%的病例中,PET和/或CT检测到的恶性或良性病变存在。PET的总体敏感性(78%)和准确性(88%)与CT相当(分别为76%和86%)。PET对肝脏部位的敏感性与CT相当(均为79%),但对肝外腹部部位的敏感性更高(分别为63%和25%)。PET为5例患者提供了额外信息,主要是通过发现肝外腹部转移,但有3例患者被错误分期。
全身FDG-PET可能在CT成像显示有可能切除的肝转移患者中识别出未被发现的肝外转移。然而,PET提供的额外信息并不像早期回顾性研究所表明的那样可靠。