Background/Aims: Although the diagnostic value of fluorine-18 2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (F-18-FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (F-18-FDG-PET/CT) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) has been reported, the association between the F-18-FDG uptake in metastatic lymph nodes (FDGLN) and clinicopathological variables has not been fully investigated. We evaluated the diagnostic value of F-18-FDG-PET/CT in detecting LN metastasis from CRC, and the relationship between F-18-FDG-PET/CT-detecting LN metastasis and prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 370 patients who underwent preoperative F-18-FDG-PET/CT, followed by surgical resection for CRC between January 2007 and December 2010. We analyzed the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of F-18-FDG-PET/CT and CT in diagnosing metastatic LNs. Survival was analyzed in 115 patients with stage III CRC. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting metastatic LNs using F-18-FDG-PET/CT were 56.8, 90.3, and 74.2%, and those for contrast-enhanced CT were 38.4, 95.5, and 65.0%, respectively. The accuracy of F-18-FDG-PET/CT was significantly associated with tumor depth and lymphatic involvement. In the survival analysis, cancer-specific survival and the disease-free survival were significantly shorter in patients with stage III CRC with FDGLN than in those without FDGLN. Conclusion: F-18-FDG-PET/CT had low sensitivity and high specificity for detecting metastatic LNs from CRC. FDGLN independently predicted poor prognosis in patients with stage III CRC.

1.
Xu R, Zhou B, Fung PC, et al: Recent advances in the treatment of colon cancer. Histol Histopathol 2006;21:867-872.
2.
McArdle CS, Hole DJ: Outcome following surgery for colorectal cancer: analysis by hospital after adjustment for case-mix and deprivation. Br J Cancer 2002;86:331-335.
3.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al: Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:71-96.
4.
Yu L, Tian M, Gao X, et al: The method and efficacy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for diagnosing the lymphatic metastasis of colorectal carcinoma. Acad Radiol 2012;19:427-433.
5.
Bipat S, Glas AS, Slors FJ, et al: Rectal cancer: local staging and assessment of lymph node involvement with endoluminal US, CT, and MR imaging - a meta-analysis. Radiology 2004;232:773-783.
6.
Heriot AG, Grundy A, Kumar D: Preoperative staging of rectal carcinoma. Br J Surg 1999;86:17-28.
7.
Lu YY, Chen JH, Ding HJ, et al: A systematic review and meta-analysis of pretherapeutic lymph node staging of colorectal cancer by 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:1127-1133.
8.
Valk PE, Abella-Columna E, Haseman MK, et al: Whole-body PET imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose in management of recurrent colorectal cancer. Arch Surg 1999;134:503-511; discussion 511-513.
9.
Erturk SM, Ichikawa T, Fujii H, et al: PET imaging for evaluation of metastatic colorectal cancer of the liver. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:229-235.
10.
Abdel-Nabi H, Doerr RJ, Lamonica DM, et al: Staging of primary colorectal carcinomas with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose whole-body PET: correlation with histopathologic and CT findings. Radiology 1998;206:755-760.
11.
Kantorová I, Lipská L, Bêlohlávek O, et al: Routine (18)F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1784-1788.
12.
Ell PJ: The contribution of PET/CT to improved patient management. Br J Radiol 2006;79:32-36.
13.
Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, et al: A combined PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1369-1379.
14.
Park IJ, Kim HC, Yu CS, et al: Efficacy of PET/CT in the accurate evaluation of primary colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006;32:941-947.
15.
Furukawa H, Ikuma H, Seki A, et al: Positron emission tomography scanning is not superior to whole body multidetector helical computed tomography in the preoperative staging of colorectal cancer. Gut 2006;55:1007-1011.
16.
Tsunoda Y, Ito M, Fujii H, et al: Preoperative diagnosis of lymph node metastases of colorectal cancer by FDG-PET/CT. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008;38:347-353.
17.
Kwak JY, Kim JS, Kim HJ, et al: Diagnostic value of FDG-PET/CT for lymph node metastasis of colorectal cancer. World J Surg 2012;36:1898-1905.
18.
Sasaki K, Kawai K, Tsuno NH, et al: Impact of preoperative thrombocytosis on the survival of patients with primary colorectal cancer. World J Surg 2012;36:192-200.
19.
Sato M, Hiyama T, Kaito K, et al: Usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the assessment of disseminated Mycobacterium avium complex infection. Ann Nucl Med 2009;23:757-762.
20.
Sato M, Okumura T, Kaito K, et al: Usefulness of FDG-PET/CT in the detection of pancreatic metastases from lung cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2009;23:49-57.
21.
Ozis SE, Soydal C, Akyol C, et al: The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in the primary staging of rectal cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2014;12:26.
22.
Nakajo M, Nakajo M, Kajiya Y, et al: Diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorothymidine PET/CT for primary colorectal cancer and its lymph node metastasis: comparison with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;40:1223-1232.
23.
Chung HH, Cheon GJ, Kang KW, et al: Preoperative PET/CT FDG standardized uptake value of pelvic lymph nodes as a significant prognostic factor in patients with uterine cervical cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2014;41:674-681.
24.
Choi HJ, Kang CM, Lee WJ, et al: Prognostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Yonsei Med J 2013;54:1377-1383.
25.
Lee HS, Kim HO, Hong YS, et al: Prognostic value of metabolic parameters in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastasis following curative-intent colorectal and hepatic surgery. J Nucl Med 2014;55:582-589.
26.
Riedl CC, Akhurst T, Larson S, et al: 18F-FDG PET scanning correlates with tissue markers of poor prognosis and predicts mortality for patients after liver resection for colorectal metastases. J Nucl Med 2007;48:771-775.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.