Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 8/2014

01-08-2014 | Original Article

Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has Limited Utility in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Authors: Peter Einersen, Irene Epelboym, Megan D. Winner, David Leung, John A. Chabot, John D. Allendorf

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 8/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Positron emission tomography (PET) as an adjunct to conventional imaging in the staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is controversial. Herein, we assess the utility of PET in identifying metastatic disease and evaluate the prognostic potential of standard uptake value (SUV).

Methods

Imaging and follow-up data for patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma were reviewed retrospectively. Resectability was assessed based on established criteria, and sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of PET were compared to those of conventional imaging modalities.

Results

For 123 patients evaluated 2005–2011, PET and CT/MRI were concordant in 108 (88 %) cases; however, PET identified occult metastatic lesions in seven (5.6 %). False-positive PETs delayed surgery for three (8.3 %) patients. In a cohort free of metastatic disease in 78.9 % of cases, the sensitivity and specificity of PET for metastases were 89.3 and 85.1 %, respectively, compared with 62.5 and 93.5 % for CT and 61.5 and 100.0 % for MRI. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of PET were 64.1 and 96.4 %, respectively, compared with 75.0 and 88.9 % for CT and 100.0 and 91.9 % for MRI. Average difference in maximum SUV of resectable and unresectable lesions was not statistically significant (5.65 vs. 6.5, p = 0.224) nor was maximum SUV a statistically significant predictor of survival (p = 0.18).

Conclusion

PET is more sensitive in identifying metastatic lesions than CT or MRI; however, it has a lower specificity, lower positive predictive value, and in some cases, can delay definitive surgical management. Therefore, PET has limited utility as an adjunctive modality in staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Siegel, R., et al. (2011). “Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths.” CA Cancer J Clin 2011 61(4): 212–236. Siegel, R., et al. (2011). “Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths.” CA Cancer J Clin 2011 61(4): 212–236.
2.
go back to reference O’Malley ME, et al. (1999) “Adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: Determination of surgical unresectability with thin-section pancreatic-phase helical CT.” AJR 1999; 173: 1513–1518. O’Malley ME, et al. (1999) “Adenocarcinoma of the head of the pancreas: Determination of surgical unresectability with thin-section pancreatic-phase helical CT.” AJR 1999; 173: 1513–1518.
3.
go back to reference McCarthy MJ, et al. (1998) “Prediction of resectability of pancreatic malignancy by computed tomography.” Br J Surg 1998; 85: 320–325.PubMedCrossRef McCarthy MJ, et al. (1998) “Prediction of resectability of pancreatic malignancy by computed tomography.” Br J Surg 1998; 85: 320–325.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Miura F, et al. (2006) “Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer” HPB, 2006; 8: 337_342 Miura F, et al. (2006) “Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer” HPB, 2006; 8: 337_342
5.
go back to reference Vellet AD, et al. (1992) “Adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic ducts: comparative evaluation with CT and MR imaging at 1.5 T.” Radiology 1992;/183:/87_95. Vellet AD, et al. (1992) “Adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic ducts: comparative evaluation with CT and MR imaging at 1.5 T.” Radiology 1992;/183:/87_95.
6.
go back to reference Stollfuss JC, et al. (1995) “2-(fluorine-18)-fluoro-2-deoxy- D -glucose PET in detection of pancreatic cancer: Value of quantitative image interpretation.” Radiology 1995; 195: 339–344. Stollfuss JC, et al. (1995) “2-(fluorine-18)-fluoro-2-deoxy- D -glucose PET in detection of pancreatic cancer: Value of quantitative image interpretation.” Radiology 1995; 195: 339–344.
7.
go back to reference Tempero, A et al. (2012) “Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2012: Featured Update to NCCN Guidelines” J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2012;10:703-713 Tempero, A et al. (2012) “Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2012: Featured Update to NCCN Guidelines” J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2012;10:703-713
8.
go back to reference Seo, S., et al. (2008). “Contribution of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to the diagnosis of early pancreatic carcinoma.” J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 15(6): 634–639.PubMedCrossRef Seo, S., et al. (2008). “Contribution of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to the diagnosis of early pancreatic carcinoma.” J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 15(6): 634–639.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Imdahl, A., et al. (1999). “Evaluation of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose for the differentiation of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.” Br J Surg 86(2): 194–199.PubMedCrossRef Imdahl, A., et al. (1999). “Evaluation of positron emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose for the differentiation of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.” Br J Surg 86(2): 194–199.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kidd, E. A., et al. (2007). “The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival.” Cancer 110(8): 1738–1744.PubMedCrossRef Kidd, E. A., et al. (2007). “The standardized uptake value for F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose is a sensitive predictive biomarker for cervical cancer treatment response and survival.” Cancer 110(8): 1738–1744.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Imsande, H. M., et al. (2011). “Use of 18F-FDG PET/CT as a predictive biomarker of outcome in patients with head-and-neck non-squamous cell carcinoma.” AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(4): 976–980.PubMedCrossRef Imsande, H. M., et al. (2011). “Use of 18F-FDG PET/CT as a predictive biomarker of outcome in patients with head-and-neck non-squamous cell carcinoma.” AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(4): 976–980.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lyshchik A, et al. “Dual-phase 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography as a prognostic parameter in patients with pancreatic cancer.” Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:389–397.PubMedCrossRef Lyshchik A, et al. “Dual-phase 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography as a prognostic parameter in patients with pancreatic cancer.” Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32:389–397.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Wakabayashi H, et al. (2008) Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in surgery for pancreatic cancer.” World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:64–69 Wakabayashi H, et al. (2008) Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in surgery for pancreatic cancer.” World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:64–69
Metadata
Title
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has Limited Utility in the Staging of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Authors
Peter Einersen
Irene Epelboym
Megan D. Winner
David Leung
John A. Chabot
John D. Allendorf
Publication date
01-08-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 8/2014
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2529-x

Other articles of this Issue 8/2014

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 8/2014 Go to the issue