Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of FDG PET/CT in the staging and the follow-up of anal carcinoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to assess the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and fluorodeoxyglucose (18F) (FDG PET/CT) for the staging and the follow-up of anal carcinoma, and to evaluate the impact of FDG PET/CT on patient management.

Materials and methods

Patients with anal carcinoma were referred to our department from October 2004 until July 2008. The diagnostic performance was evaluated on a per-examination basis and on a per-site basis, together with impact of PET/CT on patient management. The standard of truth was histology when available and, in all cases, follow-up data during at least 6 months.

Results

Fifty-eight FDG PET/CT performed in 44 patients were analysed—22 for initial staging and 36 during follow-up. The detection rate of non-excised tumours on initial examination was 93%. During post-treatment follow-up, FDG PET/CT had, on a per-examination basis, sensitivity for the detection of persistent or recurrent disease of 93% and specificity of 81%, and on a per-site basis, 86% and 97%, respectively. Its negative predictive value was 94% on a per-examination basis and 98% on a per-site basis. FDG PET/CT had an impact on management in nine patients out of 44 (20%), which was relevant in eight of them (89%).

Conclusion

FDG PET/CT is an accurate imaging modality in anal cancer. It has an interesting added value during post-treatment follow-up, especially when persistence or recurrence of disease is suspected. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether surveillance by means of FDG PET/CT might have a positive impact on overall survival.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al (2008) Cancer statistics, 2008 CA. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 58:71–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson LG, Madeleine MM, Newcomer LM et al (2004) Anal cancer incidence and survival: the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results experience, 1973–2000. Cancer 101:281–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Welton ML, Sharkey FE, Kahlenberg MS (2004) The etiology and epidemiology of anal cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 13:263–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fleshner PR, Chalasani S, Chang GJ et al (2008) Practice parameters for anal squamous neoplasms. Dis Colon Rectum 51:2–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldman S, Norming U, Svensson C et al (1991) Transanorectal ultrasonography in the staging of anal epidermoid carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis 6:152–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scherrer A, Reboul F, Martin D et al (1990) CT of malignant anal canal tumors. Radiographics 10:433–453

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Roach SC, Hulse PA, Moulding FJ et al (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of anal cancer. Clin Radiol 60:1111–1119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Damin DC, Rosito MA, Gus P et al (2003) Sentinel lymph node procedure in patients with epidermoid carcinoma of the anal canal: early experience. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1032–1037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sato H, Koh PK, Bartolo DC (2005) Management of anal canal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1301–1315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gérard JP, Chapet O, Samiei F et al (2001) Management of inguinal lymph node metastases in patients with carcinoma of the anal canal. Cancer 92:77–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Das P, Bhatia S, Eng C et al (2007) Predictors and patterns of recurrence after definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 68:794–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghouti L, Houvenaeghel G, Moutardier V et al (2005) Salvage abdominoperineal resection after failure of conservative treatment in anal epidermoid cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 48:16–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Christensen AF, Nielsen MB, Svendsen LB et al (2006) Three-dimensional anal endosonography may improve detection of recurrent anal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1527–1532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shankar LK, Hoffman JM, Bacharach S et al (2006) Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. J Nucl Med 47:1059–1066

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Trautmann TG, Zuger JH (2005) Positron emission tomography for pretreatment staging and posttreatment evaluation in cancer of the anal canal. Mol Imaging Biol 7:309–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Anderson C, Koshy M, Staley C et al (2007) PET-CT fusion in radiation management of patients with anorectal tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69:155–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cotter SE, Grigsby PW, Siegel BA et al (2006) FDG-PET/CT in the evaluation of anal carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:720–725

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nguyen BT, Joon DL, Khoo V et al (2008) Assessing the impact of FDG-PET in the management of anal cancer. Radiother Oncol 87:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. de Winton E, Heriot AG, Ng M et al (2009) The impact of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the staging, management and outcome of anal cancer. Br J Cancer 100:693–700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schwarz JK, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F et al (2008) Tumor response and survival predicted by post-therapy FDG-PET/CT in anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 71:180–186

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meta J, Seltzer M, Schiepers C et al (2001) Impact of 18F-FDG PET on managing patients with colorectal cancer: the referring physician's perspective. J Nucl Med 42:586–590

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mistrangelo M, Pelosi E, Bellò M et al (2010) Comparison of positron emission tomography scanning and sentinel node biopsy in the detection of inguinal node metastases in patients with anal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77(1):73–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van Waarde A, Cobben DC, Suurmeijer AJ et al (2004) Selectivity of 18F-FLT and 18F-FDG for differentiating tumor from inflammation in a rodent model. J Nucl Med 45:695–700

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Grigsby PW (2009) FDG-PET/CT: new horizons in anal cancer. Gastroentérol Clin Biol 33:456–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mai SK, Welzel G, Hermann B et al (2009) Can the radiation dose to CT-enlarged but FDG-PET-negative inguinal lymph nodes in anal cancer be reduced? Strahlenther Onkol 185:254–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Iagaru A, Kundu R, Jadvar H et al (2009) Evaluation by (18)F-FDG-PET of patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma. Hell J Nucl Med 12:26–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the clinicians who referred the patients and also provided us with valuable follow-up information Drs. Atienza, Bourguignon, Etienney, Meary and Mory, from Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint-Simon, Drs. Huguet and Pene from Hôpital Tenon. We thank Pr Meignan for his review of the draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuclear Medicine Department, Hôpital Tenon et Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 75970, Paris Cedex 20, France

    Laetitia Vercellino, Françoise Montravers, Virginie Huchet, Khaldoun Kerrou & Jean-Noël Talbot

  2. Department of Proctology, Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses Croix Saint-Simon, 18-22 rue du Sergent Bauchat, 75012, Paris, France

    Vincent de Parades & Pierre Bauer

  3. Radiotherapy–Oncology Department, Hôpital Tenon et Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 75970, Paris Cedex 20, France

    Emmanuel Touboul

  4. Hôpital Tenon, 4, rue de Chine, 75970, Paris Cedex 20, France

    Laetitia Vercellino & Jean-Noël Talbot

Authors
  1. Laetitia Vercellino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Françoise Montravers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent de Parades
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Virginie Huchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Khaldoun Kerrou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pierre Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Emmanuel Touboul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Noël Talbot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Noël Talbot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vercellino, L., Montravers, F., de Parades, V. et al. Impact of FDG PET/CT in the staging and the follow-up of anal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis 26, 201–210 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1080-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1080-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation