The impact of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with liver metastases.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the performance of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) versus dedicated contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) in the detection of metastatic liver disease.


METHODS
All patients that presented to our Institution with suspected metastatic liver disease who underwent (18)F-FDG PET/CT and CECT within 6 weeks of each other, were retrospectively analyzed, covering a 5-year period. One hundred and thirty-one patients (67 men, 64 women; mean age 62) were identified. Seventy-five had colorectal carcinoma and 56 had other malignancies. The performance of CECT and that of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in detecting liver metastases were compared. The ability of each to detect local recurrence, extrahepatic metastases and to alter patient management was recorded. The final diagnosis was based on histology, clinical and radiological follow-up (mean 23 months).


RESULTS
In detecting hepatic metastases, (18)F-FDG-PET/CT yielded 96% sensitivity and 75% specificity, whilst CECT showed 88% sensitivity and 25% specificity. (18)F-FDG-PET/CT and CECT were concordant in 102 out of 131 patients (78%). In the colorectal group (18)F-FDG-PET/CT showed 94% sensitivity and 75% specificity, whilst CECT had 91% sensitivity and 25% specificity. In the noncolorectal group (18)F-FDG-PET/CT showed 98% sensitivity and 75% specificity whilst CECT had 85% sensitivity and 25% specificity. Overall, (18)F-FDG-PET/CT altered patient management over CECT in 25% of patients. CECT did not alter patient management over (18)F-FDG-PET/CT alone in any patients.


CONCLUSIONS
(18)F-FDG-PET/CT performed better in detecting metastatic liver disease than CECT in both colorectal and noncolorectal malignancies, and frequently altered patient management. The future role of CECT in these patients may need to be re-evaluated to avoid potentially unnecessary duplication of investigation where (18)F-PET/CT is readily available.
Chua
Siew C
SC
Institute of Nuclear Medicine, UCL Hospital, University College London, 235 Euston Road, London, UK.
Groves
Ashley M
AM
Kayani
Irfan
I
Menezes
Leon
L
Gacinovic
Svetislav
S
Du
Yong
Y
Bomanji
Jamshed B
JB
Ell
Peter J
PJ
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; D006801:Humans; D007089:Image Enhancement / Q000379:methods; D008113:Liver Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000556:secondary*; D008875:Middle Aged; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000379:methods*; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D013382:Subtraction Technique; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*
D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Eur J Med Res. 2006 Feb 21;11(2):58-65
16504962
J Nucl Med. 1999 Feb;40(2):250-5
10025831
World J Surg. 1995 Jan-Feb;19(1):76-82
7740814
J Clin Oncol. 1996 Mar;14 (3):700-8
8622014
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2005 Jun;35(6):338-41
15928191
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1996 Apr;5(2):337-52
9019355
Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):123-31
16100087
Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):137-42
12354997
World J Surg. 1995 Jan-Feb;19(1):72-5
7740813
Surgery. 1997 Jun;121(6):625-32
9186462
Ann Surg. 2005 Feb;241(2):269-76
15650637
Eur Radiol. 2007 Apr;17(4):939-49
16951929
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Jan;19(1):3-14
17206071
Arch Surg. 1998 May;133(5):510-5; discussion 515-6
9605913
J Am Coll Surg. 2000 Jul;191(1):38-46
10898182
Am J Surg. 1995 Jan;169(1):36-42; discussion 42-3
7817996
Invest Radiol. 2005 Dec;40(12):743-53
16304476
Radiology. 2002 Sep;224(3):748-56
12202709
Ann Surg. 2001 Oct;234(4):540-7; discussion 547-8
11573047
Ann Surg. 2004 Dec;240(6):1027-34; discussion 1035-6
15570208
J Am Coll Surg. 1998 Nov;187(5):487-93
9809564
Eur Radiol. 2006 Jun;16(6):1337-45
16453115
Ann Surg. 2003 Dec;238(6):843-50; discussion 851-2
14631221
Radiology. 2006 Apr;239(1):131-8
16484347
Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Mar;9(2):204-9
11888880