Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Abdominal Radiology
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 2/2006

01-04-2006

PET in abdominal pathology: advantages and limitations

Authors: A. Sánchez Salmón, J. Barandela Salgado, A. Ruibal Morell

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 2/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

New oncologic procedures are currently more focused on the biological features of tumors. The ideal objective is the administration of personalized effective treatments for each patient that affects not just the location and spread of disease but also special metabolic characteristics of tumoral cells. Radiologic diagnostic methods are extremely important in the management of the patient for staging, restaging, and evaluation of treatment response, and clinicians are avid for some additional functional and metabolic information. Further, they need more dynamic methods for follow-up. Nuclear Medicine and positron emission tomography (PET) in many cases can meet this requirement, although it is not perfect, at least at the present time. Currently 2-(18F)fluoro-2-desoxi-D-glucose positron emission tomography is being widely used for oncologic purposes. Its information can be very useful in abdominal diseases and must be taken into account with the results of radiologic imaging. Thus, many changes in the choice of treatment are seen. However, it is very important to know that sometimes there is a lack of specificity that has to be considered.
Literature
1.
Aide N, Cappele O, Bensadoun H, et al. Efficiency of 18 F-FDG PET in characterising renal cancer and detecting distant metastases: a comparison with CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:1236–1245PubMedCrossRef
2.
Alavi A, Kung JW, Zhuang H. Implications of PET Based molecular imaging on the current and future practice of medicine. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:56–69PubMedCrossRef
3.
Anders S, Eriksson B, Bergstrom M. PET in the diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumors. Ann NY Acad Sci 2004;1014:246–257
4.
Barrio JR (2004) Future applications in PET imaging: The development and use of molecular biomarkers. Appl Radiol 33(suppl):1–6
5.
Bujenovic S. The role of positron emission tomography in radiation treatment planning. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:293–299PubMedCrossRef
6.
Ca van Kouwen M, Jansen JB, van Goor H, et al. (2004) FDG-PET is able to detect pancreatic carcinoma in chronic pancreatitis [abstract]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:399–404
7.
Chang CH, Wu HC Tsai JJ, et al. Detecting metastatic pelvic lymph nodes by 18F-2-deosiglucose positron emission tomography in patients with prostate-specific antigen relapse after treatment for localized prostate cancer. Urol Int 2003;70:311–315PubMedCrossRef
8.
Cohade C, Wahl R. Applications of positron emission tomography /computed tomography image fusion in clinical positron emission tomography—clinical use, interpretation methods, diagnostic improvements. Semin Nucl Med 2003;32:228–237
9.
Cook G, Wegner E, Fogelman I, et al. Pitfalls and artefacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:122–133PubMedCrossRef
10.
Cremerius U, Effert PJ, Adam G, et al. FDG PET for detection and therapy control of metastatic germ cell tumor. J Nucl Med 1998;39:815–822PubMed
11.
Davies JR, Rudd JH, Weissberg PL. Molecular and metabolic imaging of atherosclerosis. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1898–1907PubMed
12.
De Santis M, Bokemeyer C, Becherer A, et al. 2-18fluoro-deoxi-D-glucose positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor of viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma: an update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1034–1039PubMed
13.
Delbeke D, Martin WH. PET and PET-CT for evaluation of colorectal carcinoma Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:209–223PubMedCrossRef
14.
Delbeke D, Rose D, Chapman WC, et al. Optimal interpretation of FDG PET in the diagnosis, staging and management of pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1784–1791PubMed
15.
Delbeke D, Vitola J, Sandler MP, et al. Staging recurrent metastatic colorectal carcinoma with PET. J Nucl Med 1997;38:1196– 1201PubMed
16.
Delgado-Bolton R, Fernandez-Perez C, Gonzalez Mate F, et al. Meta-analysis of the performance of 18F-FDG PET in primary tumor detection in unknown primary tumors. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1301–1314PubMed
17.
El-Haddad G, Zhuang H, Gupta N. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in the management of patients with inflammatory and other benign disorders. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:313–329PubMed
18.
Even-Sapir E, Parag Y, Lerman H, et al. Detection of recurrence in patients with rectal cancer: PET/CT after abdominoperineal or anterior resection. Radiology 2004;232:815–822PubMed
19.
Fernandez F, Drebin J, Linehan D, et al. Five-year survival after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer in patients screened by positron emission tomography (FDG PET). Ann Surg 2004;240:438–450PubMed
20.
Gayed I, Vu T, Iyer R, et al. The role of 18F-FDG PET in staging and early prediction of response to therapy of recurrent gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Nucl Med 2004;45:17–21PubMed
21.
Greven KM, Williams DW, McGuirt WF, et al. Serial positron emission tomography scans following radiation therapy of patients with head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2001;23:942–946PubMedCrossRef
22.
Grigsby PW, Siegel BA, Dehdashti F, et al. Posttherapy 18F-fluorodeoxiglucose positron emission tomography in carcinoma of the cervix: response and outcome. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2167–2171PubMedCrossRef
23.
Haberkom U, Altman A, Mier W, et al. Impact of functional genomics and proteinomics on radionuclide imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:4–22
24.
Hadvar S, Conti P (2004). The reproductive tract. Semin Nucl Med 34:262–273
25.
Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR. Fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the initial staging of germ cell tumors. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:590–594PubMedCrossRef
26.
Hicks RJ, Heriot AHG. The impact of FDG-PET on the primary staging of locally-advanced rectal cancer [abstract]. Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5:188
27.
Ilias I, Pack K. Current approaches and recommended algorithm for the diagnostic localization of pheochromocytoma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004;89:479–491PubMed
28.
Israel O, Keidar Z, Bar-Shalom R. Positron emission tomography in the evaluation of lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:166–179PubMedCrossRef
29.
Jadvar H, Kherbache HM, Pinski JK, et al. Diagnostic role of (F18)-FDG positron emission tomography in restaging renal cell carcinoma. Clin Nephrol 2003;60:395–400PubMed
30.
Jadvar H, Pinski JK, Conti PS. FDG PET in suspected recurrent and metastatic prostate cancer. Oncol Rep 2003;10:1485–1488PubMed
31.
Jerome R. Whole body FDG PET in patients with stage I non-seminomatous germ cell tumours [editorial comment]. J Urol 2004;172:1202
32.
Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassote MF, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography using 18-fluoreoxiglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 1999;94:429–433PubMed
33.
Kalra M, Maher M, Fischman A. PET and PET/CT in the evaluation of pancreatic malignancies. Disc PET Imaging 2004;634:1–4
34.
Kamel E, Thumshirn M, Truninger K, et al. Significance of incidental 18-FDG accumulations in the gastrointestinal tract in PET/CT: correlation with endoscopic and histopathologic results. J Nucl Med 2004;45:1804–1810PubMed
35.
Kang D, White R, Zuger J, et al. Clinical use of fluorodeoxyglucose F18 positron emission tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2004;171:1806–1809PubMedCrossRef
36.
Kantorova I, Lipska L, Belohlavek O, et al. Routine 18F-FDG PET preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: comparison with conventional staging and its impact on treatment decision making. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1784–1788PubMed
37.
Klose T, Leidl R, Buchmann I, et al. Primary staging of lymphomas: cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET versus computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 2000;27:1457–1464PubMedCrossRef
38.
Koyama K, Okamura T, Kawabe J, et al. Evaluation of 18-FDG PET with bladder irrigation in patients with uterine and ovarian tumors. J Nucl Med 2003;44:353–358PubMed
39.
Lai CH, Huang Kg, See LC, et al. Restaging of recurrent cervical carcinoma with dual phase 18F-fluoro-2-deoxi-D-glucose positron emission tomography. Cancer 2004;100:544–552PubMedCrossRef
40.
Larson SM, Morris M, Gunther I, et al. Tumor localization of 16beta-18F-fluor-5alpha-dihydrotestosterone versus 18F-FDG in patines with progressive metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 2004;45:366–373PubMed
41.
Lin WC, Hung YC Yeh LS, et al. Usefulness of (18)-F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect para-aortic lymph nodal metastases in advanced cervical cancer with negative computed tomography imaging findings. Gynecol Oncol 2003;89:73–76PubMedCrossRef
42.
Majhail N S, Urbain JL, Albani JM, et al. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the evaluation of distant metastases from renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3995–4000PubMedCrossRef
43.
Maldonado A, Garcia Rico E, Cornide M, et al. Metabolic Imaging in the suspicion of recurrent ovarian cancer based on elevated tumor marker serum levels. Evidence in 81 patients [abstract]. Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5:190
44.
Najjar F, Hustinx R, Jerusalem G, et al. (2001) Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL). Cancer Biother Radiopharm 16:297–304PubMedCrossRef
45.
Orlando LA, Kulasingam SL, Matchar DB. The detection of pancreatic malignancy with positron emission tomography [abstract]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20:1063–1070PubMedCrossRef
46.
Ortega F, Fernandez Martos C, Poveda A, et al. The usefulness of FDG PET for staging, restaging, and management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and gastric carcinoma, preliminary study in 36 patients [abstract]. Mol Imaging Biol 2003;5:191
47.
Ott K, Ulrich F, Becker K. Prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy in gastric carcinoma by metabolic imaging: results of a prospective trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4604–4610PubMedCrossRef
48.
Oyama N, Akiro H, Suzuki Y, et al. Prognostic value of 2-deoxi-2 (F18) fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography imaging for patients with prostate cancer. Mol Imaging Biol 2002;4:99–104PubMed
49.
Potharaju SP, Hall NC, Hubner F, et al. (2003) The role of FDG PET in management of renal cell carcinoma and prognostic significance [abstract]. Mol Imaging Biol 5:195
50.
Rini JN, Leonidas JC, Tomas MB, et al. 18F-FDG PET versus CT for evaluating the spleen during initial staging of lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1072–1074PubMed
51.
Rohren E, Turkington T, Coleman E. Clinical applications of PET in oncology. Radiology 2004;231:305–332PubMed
52.
Ryu SY, Kim MH, Park SY, et al. Detection of early recurrence with 18F-FDG PET in patients with cervical cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:347–352PubMed
53.
Saisho H, Yamaguchi T. Diagnostic imaging for pancreatic cancer. Computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. Pancreas 2004;28:273–278PubMed
54.
Schöder H, Larson SM. Positron emission tomography for prostate, bladder, and renal cancer. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:274–292PubMed
55.
Schot B, Van Imhoff G, Pruim J, et al. Predictive value of early 18F fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in chemosensitive relapsed lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2003;123:282–287PubMedCrossRef
56.
Shreve P, Anzau Y, Wahl R. Pitfalls in oncologic diagnosis with FDG PET imaging: physiologic and benign variants. Radiographics 1999;19:61–77PubMed
57.
Shulkin BL, Thompson NW, Shapiro B, et al. Pheochromocytomas: imaging with 2-fluorine-18 fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose PET. Radiology 1999;212:35–41PubMed
58.
Shvarts O, Han K, Seltzer M, et al. Positron emission tomography in urologic oncology. Cancer Control 2002;9:335–342PubMed
59.
Stahl A, Ott K, Weber WA, Fink U, et al. Correlation of FDG uptake in gastric carcinomas with endoscopic and histopathological findings. J Nucl Med 2001;42(suppl):78
60.
Singh AK, Grigsby PW, Dehdashti F, et al. FDG PET lymph node staging and survival in patients with FIGO stage IIIb cervical carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2003;56:489–493PubMedCrossRef
61.
Teague B, Morrison C, Court F, et al. Role of FDG PET in surgical management of patients with colorectal liver metastases. Aust N Z J Surg 2004;74:646–652CrossRef
62.
Torizuka T, Kanno T, Futatsubashi M, et al. Imaging of gynaecologic tumors: comparison of (11)C-choline PET with (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1051–1056PubMed
63.
Turlakow A, Yeung H, Sanchez Salmon A. Peritoneal carcinomatosis: role of 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2003;44:1407–1412PubMed
64.
Whiteford MH, Whiteford HM, Yee LF, et al. Usefulness of FDG-PET scan in the assessment of suspected metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:759–767PubMedCrossRef
65.
Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science 1956;123:309–314PubMed
66.
Williams AD, Cousins C, Soutter WP, et al. Detection of pelvic lymph node metastases in gynaecologic malignancy: a comparison of CT, MR imaging and positron emission tomography. AJR 2001;177:343–348PubMed
67.
Yoshida Y, Kurokawa T, Kawahara K, et al. Incremental benefits of FDG positron emission tomography over CT alone for the preoperative staging of ovarian cancer. AJR 2004;182:227–233PubMed
68.
Yoshioka T, Yamaguchi K, Kubota K. Evaluation of 18F-FDG PET in patients with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent gastric cancer. J Nucl Med 2003;44:690–699PubMed
69.
Zanzonico P. Positron emission tomography: a review of basic principles, scanner design and performance and current systems. Semin Nucl Med 2004;34:87–111PubMedCrossRef
70.
Zhuang H, Poudehnad M, Lambright ES, et al. Dual time point 18F-FDG PET imaging for differentiating malignant from inflammatory processes. J Nucl Med 2001;42:1412–1417PubMed
71.
Zijlstra J, Hoekstra O, Raijmakers P, et al. 18 FDG positron emission tomography versus 67 Ga scintigraphy as prognostic test during chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2003;123:454–462PubMedCrossRef
72.
Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol 1999;10:1181–1184PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
PET in abdominal pathology: advantages and limitations
Authors
A. Sánchez Salmón
J. Barandela Salgado
A. Ruibal Morell
Publication date
01-04-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 2/2006
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-005-0384-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2006

Abdominal Radiology 2/2006 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Imaging tumor angiogenesis: functional assessment using MDCT or MRI?

OriginalPaper

Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the kidney using macromolecular contrast agents

OriginalPaper

Percutaneous transhepatic obliteration for isolated gastric varices with gastropericardiac shunt: case report

OriginalPaper

Author’s reply

OriginalPaper

Abstracts of selected papers from the current literature

OriginalPaper

MR imaging of nephropathies
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits