Skip to main content
Log in

The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of suspected recurrent gastric cancer after initial surgical resection: can the results of FDG PET/CT influence patients’ treatment decision making?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT has been widely used for staging, re-staging and for monitoring therapy-induced changes and response to therapy in patients with various types of cancer, but its utilization for gastric cancer has been limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical role of FDG PET/CT in the detection of gastric cancer recurrence as compared with diagnostic CT and to assess the impact of FDG PET/CT results on patients’ treatment planning.

Methods

Thirty-four patients with suspected recurrent gastric cancer, who had previously undergone curative gastrectomy and lymph node dissection, were retrospectively analysed. The diagnostic CT and FDG PET/CT imaging were performed for all patients as clinically indicated. The results of FDG PET/CT were compared with the findings of the diagnostic CT. The changes in the clinical management of patients according to the results of FDG PET/CT were also evaluated.

Results

FDG PET/CT was performed in 19 patients (55.9%) due to the suspicion of distant metastasis at diagnostic CT. The remaining 15 patients were suspected to have local recurrence at diagnostic CT (n = 4) or gastroscopy (n = 1) and due to an increase in tumour markers or clinical manifestations (n = 10). The FDG PET/CT result was positive in 23 patients (67.6%) and negative in 11 patients (32.4%). In total, 24 (70.6%) of the 34 patients had documented recurrent disease by histopathology in 7 (29.1%) and by clinical follow-up in 17 (70.9%), while 11 patients had no evidence of recurrent disease. FDG PET/CT correctly confirmed recurrent disease in 23 of the patients with recurrence and it was classified as true-positive in these patients. However, FDG PET/CT was false-negative in one patient but recurrent disease was confirmed by histopathology. The overall sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values of FDG PET/CT were significantly superior to those of diagnostic CT (95.8 vs 62.5%, 100 vs 10%, 97 vs 47%, 100 vs 62.5% and 90.9 vs 10%, respectively, p = 0.012) in the detection of recurrent gastric cancer after initial surgery. The FDG PET/CT results changed the patients’ management in 18 (52.9%) cases by leading to the use of previously unplanned treatment procedures in 9 (50%) patients and the avoidance of previously planned therapeutic procedures in 9 (50%) patients.

Conclusion

FDG PET/CT is a superior post-therapy surveillance modality for the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer compared with diagnostic CT imaging after initial surgery. In addition, integrated FDG PET/CT was specifically helpful in optimizing the treatment plan and it might play an important role in treatment stratification in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2137–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boring CC, Squires TS, Tong T. Cancer statistics, 1993. CA Cancer J Clin 1993;43:7–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Starzyńska T. Molecular epidemiology of gastric cancer. Dig Dis 2007;25:222–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kunisaki C, Makino H, Akiyama H, Otsuka Y, Ono HA, Kosaka T, et al. Clinical significance of the metastatic lymph-node ratio in early gastric cancer. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:542–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwarz RE, Zagala-Nevarez K. Recurrence patterns after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: prognostic factors and implications for postoperative adjuvant therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:394–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yoo CH, Noh SH, Shin DW, Choi SH, Min JS. Recurrence following curative resection for gastric carcinoma. Br J Surg 2000;87:236–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kodera Y, Ito S, Yamamura Y, Mochizuki Y, Fujiwara M, Hibi K, et al. Follow-up surveillance for recurrence after curative gastric cancer surgery lacks survival benefit. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:898–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Whiting J, Sano T, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sasako M. Follow-up of gastric cancer: a review. Gastric Cancer 2006;9:74–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim KW, Choi BI, Han JK, Kim TK, Kim AY, Lee HJ, et al. Postoperative anatomic and pathologic findings at CT following gastrectomy. Radiographics 2002;22:323–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ha HK, Kim HH, Kim HS, Lee MH, Kim KT, Shinn KS. Local recurrence after surgery for gastric carcinoma: CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161:975–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mullin D, Shirkhoda A. Computed tomography after gastrectomy in primary gastric carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1985;9:30–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schelbert HR, Hoh CK, Royal HD, Brown M, Dahlbom MN, Dehdashti F, et al. Procedure guideline for tumor imaging using fluorine-18-FDG. J Nucl Med 1998;39:1302–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kostakoglu L, Agress H Jr, Goldsmith SJ. Clinical role of FDG PET in evaluation of cancer patients. Radiographics 2003;23:315–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, Becker K, Link T, Siewert JR, et al. FDG PET imaging of locally advanced gastric carcinomas: correlation with endoscopic and histopathological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:288–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mochiki E, Kuwano H, Katoh H, Asao T, Oriuchi N, Endo K. Evaluation of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for gastric cancer. World J Surg 2004;28:247–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yun M, Lim JS, Noh SH, Hyung WJ, Cheong JH, Bong JK, et al. Lymph node staging of gastric cancer using (18)F-FDG PET: a comparison study with CT. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1582–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim SK, Kang KW, Lee JS, Kim HK, Chang HJ, Choi JY, et al. Assessment of lymph node metastases using 18F-FDG PET in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:148–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yeung HW, Macapinlac H, Karpeh M, Finn RD, Larson SM. Accuracy of FDG-PET in gastric cancer. Preliminary experience. Clin Positron Imaging 1998;1:213–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Potter T, Flamen P, Van Cutsem E, Penninckx F, Filez L, Bormans G, et al. Whole-body PET with FDG for the diagnosis of recurrent gastric cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:525–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jadvar H, Tatlidil R, Garcia AA, Conti PS. Evaluation of recurrent gastric malignancy with [F-18]-FDG positron emission tomography. Clin Radiol 2003;58:215–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sun L, Su XH, Guan YS, Pan WM, Luo ZM, Wei JH, et al. Clinical role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in post-operative follow up of gastric cancer: initial results. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:4627–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park MJ, Lee WJ, Lim HK, Park KW, Choi JY, Kim BT. Detecting recurrence of gastric cancer: the value of FDG PET/CT. Abdom Imaging 2009;34:441–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sim SH, Kim YJ, Oh DY, Lee SH, Kim DW, Kang WJ, et al. The role of PET/CT in detection of gastric cancer recurrence. BMC Cancer 2009;9:73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chung HH, Kang WJ, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, Chung JK, et al. Role of [18F]FDG PET/CT in the assessment of suspected recurrent ovarian cancer: correlation with clinical or histological findings. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:480–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hubner KF, McDonald TW, Niethammer JG, Smith GT, Gould HR, Buonocore E. Assessment of primary and metastatic ovarian cancer by positron emission tomography (PET) using 2-[18F]deoxyglucose (2-[18F]FDG). Gynecol Oncol 1993;51:197–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sasako M, Saka M, Fukagawa T, Katai H, Sano T. Surgical treatment of advanced gastric cancer: Japanese perspective. Dig Surg 2007;24:101–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cuschieri A, Weeden S, Fielding J, Bancewicz J, Craven J, Joypaul V, et al. Patient survival after D1 and D2 resections for gastric cancer: long-term results of the MRC randomized surgical trial. Surgical Co-operative Group. Br J Cancer 1999;79:1522–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen CY, Hsu JS, Wu DC, Kang WY, Hsieh JS, Jaw TS, et al. Gastric cancer: preoperative local staging with 3D multi-detector row CT–correlation with surgical and histopathologic results. Radiology 2007;242:472–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kang BC, Kim JH, Kim KW, Lee DY, Baek SY, Lee SW, et al. Value of the dynamic and delayed MR sequence with Gd-DTPA in the T-staging of stomach cancer: correlation with the histopathology. Abdom Imaging 2000;25:14–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fukuya T, Honda H, Hayashi T, Kaneko K, Tateshi Y, Ro T, et al. Lymph-node metastases: efficacy for detection with helical CT in patients with gastric cancer. Radiology 1995;197:705–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Flamen P, Lerut A, Van Cutsem E, Cambier JP, Maes A, De Wever W, et al. The utility of positron emission tomography for the diagnosis and staging of recurrent esophageal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;120:1085–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Flamen P, Stroobants S, Van Cutsem E, Dupont P, Bormans G, De Vadder N, et al. Additional value of whole-body positron emission tomography with fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose in recurrent colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:894–901.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kostakoglu L, Hardoff R, Mirtcheva R, Goldsmith SJ. PET-CT fusion imaging in differentiating physiologic from pathologic FDG uptake. Radiographics 2004;24:1411–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Bilici.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bilici, A., Ustaalioglu, B.B.O., Şeker, M. et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the assessment of suspected recurrent gastric cancer after initial surgical resection: can the results of FDG PET/CT influence patients’ treatment decision making?. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38, 64–73 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1611-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1611-1

Keywords

Navigation