title: The Comparison of Computed Tomography Perfusion, Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography and Positron-Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography for the Detection of Primary Esophageal Carcinoma.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficiency of computed tomography perfusion (CTP), contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18F-FDG) positron-emission tomography (PET/CT) in the diagnosis of esophageal cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  This prospective study consisted of 33 patients with pathologically confirmed esophageal cancer, 2 of whom had an esophageal abscess. All the patients underwent CTP, CECT and PET/CT imaging and the imaging findings were evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each of the 3 imaging modalities relative to the histological diagnosis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Thirty-three tumors were visualized on CTP, 29 on CECT and 27 on PET/CT. Six tumors were stage 1, and 2 and 4 of these tumors were missed on CECT and PET/CT, respectively. Significant differences between CTP and CECT (p = 0.02), and between CTP and PET/CT (p = 0.04) were found for stage 1 tumors. Values for the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values on CTP were 100, 100, 100 and 100%, respectively. Corresponding values on CECT were 93.94, 0, 93.94 and 0%, respectively, and those on PET/CT were 87.88, 0, 93.55 and 0%, respectively. Hence, the sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of CTP were better than those of CECT and PET/CT.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  CTP had an advantage over CECT and PET/CT in detecting small lesions. CTP was valuable, especially in detecting stage 1 tumors.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Sifa University, Izmir, Turkey.
authors.forename: Berhan
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Genc
authors.forename: Mecit
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Kantarci
authors.forename: Recep
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Sade
authors.forename: Ebru
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Orsal
authors.forename: Hayri
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Ogul
authors.forename: Aylin
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Okur
authors.forename: Yener
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Aydin
authors.forename: Leyla
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Karaca
authors.forename: Atilla
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Eroğlu
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D004938:Esophageal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D005260:Female; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 / Q000008:administration & dosage; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D064847:Multimodal Imaging / Q000379:methods; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D049268:Positron-Emission Tomography / Q000379:methods; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals / Q000008:administration & dosage; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D019275:Radiopharmaceuticals; D019788:Fluorodeoxyglucose F18