HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH RSS TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Data All Versions of this Article: jnumed.108.051615v1 49/9/1451    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Related articles in JNM Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scott, A. M. Articles by Fulham, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scott, A. M. Articles by Fulham, M. J.

PET Changes Management and Improves Prognostic Stratification in Patients with Recurrent Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Multicenter Prospective Study

¹ Centre for PET, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; ² Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Austin Hospital, Victoria, Australia; ³ Southern X-Ray Clinics, Wesley Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; ⁴ MIA, Monash Medical Centre—Moorabbin Campus, Melbourne, Australia; ⁵ Australian and New Zealand Association of Physicians in Nuclear Medicine, Melbourne, Australia; and ⁶ Department of PET and Nuclear Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Faculty of Medicine and School of Information Technologies, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Andrew M. Scott, Centre for PET, Austin Hospital, Studley Rd., Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia. E-mail: andrew.scott{at}ludwig.edu.au

The aims of our study were to examine the impact of PET in changing management in patients with proven or suspected colorectal cancer recurrence and to assess the impact of management change on disease-free survival. Methods: Symptomatic patients with a residual structural lesion suggestive of recurrent tumor (group A) or patients with pulmonary or hepatic metastases considered to be potentially resectable (group B) underwent PET scans. Pre-PET management plans were documented by referring clinicians unaware of the PET results, and follow-up to 12 mo was performed to determine actual management and clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 191 patients (118 men and 73 women; mean age, 66 y) were studied. PET detected additional sites of disease in 48.4% of patients in group A and in 43.9% of patients in group B. A change in planned management was documented in 65.6% of group A and in 49.0% of group B patients. These management plans were implemented in 96% of patients. Follow-up data in group A showed progressive disease in 60.5% of patients with additional lesions detected by PET, compared with conventional imaging, and in 36.2% of patients with no additional lesions detected by PET (P = 0.04). In group B, progressive disease was identified in 65.9% of patients with additional lesions detected by PET and in 39.2% of patients with no additional lesions detected by PET (P = 0.01). PET also provided valuable prognostic information on patients stratified into curative- or palliative-intent groups. Conclusion: These data demonstrate the significant impact of PET on management and outcomes in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer.

Key Words: molecular imaging • oncology • PET/CT • PET • colorectal cancer • management change

COPYRIGHT © 2008 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2008 49: 11A-12A. [Full Text]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. M. Zafar, N. N. Mahmoud, N. Mitra, C. Wirtalla, K. Armstrong, and P. W. Groeneveld Resected Colorectal Cancer among Medicare Beneficiaries:Adoption of FDG PET Radiology, February 1, 2010; 254(2): 501 - 508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]