|
|
||||||||
Clinical Investigations |
1 Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, Ahmanson Biological Imaging Center, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
2 Department of Oncology, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
3 Department of Radiology, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
The aim of this study was to compare PET with 18F-FDG PET, in-line PET/CT, and software fusion of independently acquired CT and PET scans for staging of recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Fifty-one patients with suspected recurrent CRC were studied with in-line PET/CT. Thirty-four of these patients underwent an additional CT scan of the chest or abdomen within 4 wk of PET/CT. Software fusion of PET and CT was performed using a fully automated, intensity-based algorithm. The accuracy of the coregistration of PET and CT scans was evaluated by measuring the distance between landmarks visible in the PET and CT images. Histologic evaluation and follow-up for 6 mo served as the gold standard for the presence or absence of recurrent CRC. Results: On a patient basis, the accuracy of staging was significantly higher for in-line PET/CT than for PET (88% vs. 71%, P = 0.01). Software fusion of the independently acquired PET and CT images was unsuccessful in 8 patients (24%). In the remaining patients, the mean distance between 62 landmarks visible in PET and CT was 12.9 ± 7.9 mm, whereas it was only 7.7 ± 4.7 mm for in-line PET/CT (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients with suspected recurrent CRC, in-line PET/CT significantly improves staging compared with PET alone. Due to its high failure rate, software fusion of independently acquired PET and CT studies cannot be considered to represent an alternative to in-line PET/CT.
Key Words: recurrent colorectal cancer colorectal cancer staging 18F-FDG PET in-line PET/CT software image fusion
Related articles in JNM:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. W. Townsend Dual-Modality Imaging: Combining Anatomy and Function J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2008; 49(6): 938 - 955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. W. Fletcher, B. Djulbegovic, H. P. Soares, B. A. Siegel, V. J. Lowe, G. H. Lyman, R. E. Coleman, R. Wahl, J. C. Paschold, N. Avril, et al. Recommendations on the Use of 18F-FDG PET in Oncology J. Nucl. Med., March 1, 2008; 49(3): 480 - 508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. U. Gerth, K. U. Juergens, U. Dirksen, J. Gerss, O. Schober, and C. Franzius Significant Benefit of Multimodal Imaging: PET/CT Compared with PET Alone in Staging and Follow-up of Patients with Ewing Tumors J. Nucl. Med., December 1, 2007; 48(12): 1932 - 1939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
W. V. Vogel, J. A. van Dalen, B. Wiering, H. Huisman, F. H.M. Corstens, T. J.M. Ruers, and W. J.G. Oyen Evaluation of Image Registration in PET/CT of the Liver and Recommendations for Optimized Imaging J. Nucl. Med., June 1, 2007; 48(6): 910 - 919. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A C Pfannenberg, P Aschoff, K Brechtel, M Muller, M Klein, R Bares, C D Claussen, and S M Eschmann Value of contrast-enhanced multiphase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2007; 80(954): 437 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. V. Taira, R. J. Herfkens, S. S. Gambhir, and A. Quon Detection of Bone Metastases: Assessment of Integrated FDG PET/CT Imaging Radiology, April 1, 2007; 243(1): 204 - 211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Nakamoto, S. Sakamoto, T. Okada, M. Senda, T. Higashi, T. Saga, and K. Togashi Clinical Value of Manual Fusion of PET and CT Images in Patients with Suspected Recurrent Colorectal Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2007; 188(1): 257 - 267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Schoder and M. Gonen Screening for Cancer with PET and PET/CT: Potential and Limitations J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 4S - 18S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
O. Israel and A. Kuten Early Detection of Cancer Recurrence: 18F-FDG PET/CT Can Make a Difference in Diagnosis and Patient Care J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 28S - 35S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. Gregoire, K. Haustermans, X. Geets, S. Roels, and M. Lonneux PET-Based Treatment Planning in Radiotherapy: A New Standard? J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 68S - 77S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Czernin, M. Allen-Auerbach, and H. R. Schelbert Improvements in Cancer Staging with PET/CT: Literature-Based Evidence as of September 2006 J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2007; 48(1_suppl): 78S - 88S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. B. Prabhakar, D. V. Sahani, A. J. Fischman, P. R. Mueller, and M. A. Blake Bowel Hot Spots at PET-CT RadioGraphics, January 1, 2007; 27(1): 145 - 159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Veit-Haibach, C. A. Kuehle, T. Beyer, H. Stergar, H. Kuehl, J. Schmidt, G. Borsch, G. Dahmen, J. Barkhausen, A. Bockisch, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Colorectal Cancer Staging With Whole-Body PET/CT Colonography JAMA, December 6, 2006; 296(21): 2590 - 2600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. Kamel, P. Jichlinski, J. O. Prior, J.-Y. Meuwly, J.-F. Delaloye, L. Vaucher, J. Malterre, S. Castaldo, H.-J. Leisinger, and A. B. Delaloye Forced Diuresis Improves the Diagnostic Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET in Abdominopelvic Malignancies J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2006; 47(11): 1803 - 1807. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY | THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE |