Comparison of FLT-PET/CT and CECT in gastric cancer diagnosis.

AIM

To date, no data are available on the use of 18-fluorothymidine positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FLT-PET/CT) for preoperative gastric cancer staging. Herein, we attempt to assess the value of FLT-PET/CT for preoperative gastric cancer staging in comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a group of 96 gastric cancer patients, 96 FLT-PET/CT, 56 abdominal cavity CECT, and 51 resective operations were done. All three (FLT-PET/CT, CECT, and resective operation) were done in 29 patients. The results of FLT-PET/CT, CECT, and histopathological examinations were used to assess the ability of FLT-PET/CT and CECT to identify primary tumors, regional nodal metastases, and distant abdominal metastases. Assessment of regional lymph nodes was based on SUVmax in FLT-PET/CT and SAD (short-axis diameter) in CECT.

RESULTS

In the group of 56 patients examined with FLT-PET/CT and CECT, identification of the primary tumor was possible in 56 cases (100%) and in 53 cases (94.6%), respectively, (p = 0.013). Using ROC curve, the sensitivity and specificity of FLT-PET/CT in metastatic regional lymph node assessment were higher than those of CECT (p = 0.0033). FLT-PE/CT enabled identification of a greater number of extraregional abdominal metastases than CECT (n = 56; 19 vs. 15, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of FLT-PET/CT to identify primary tumors is greater than that of CECT, and thus FLT-PET/CT was better in evaluating regional nodal metastases. FLT-PET/CT enabled identification of a greater number of abdominal metastases than CECT, but the difference was not statistically significant.