Search

Background: The sensitivity of 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for advanced colorectal neoplasms among healthy subjects is not yet fully understood. The present study aimed to clarify the sensitivity by analyzing large-scale data from an asymptomatic screening population.Methods: A total of 7505 asymptomatic screenees who underwent both FDG-PET and colonoscopy at our Cancer Screening Division between February 2004 and March 2013 were analyzed. FDG-PET and colonoscopy were performed on consecutive days, and each examination was interpreted in a blinded fashion. The results of the two examinations were compared for each of the divided six colonic segments, with those from colonoscopy being set as the reference. The relationships between the sensitivity of FDG-PET and clinicopathological features of advanced neoplasms were also evaluated.Results: Two hundred ninety-one advanced neoplasms, including 24 invasive cancers, were detected in 262 individuals. Thirteen advanced neoplasms (advanced adenomas) were excluded from the analysis because of the coexistence of lesions in the same colonic segment. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of FDG-PET for advanced neoplasms were 16.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 12.7-21.8 %], 99.3 % (95 % CI 99.2-99.4 %), 13.5 % (95 % CI 10.1-17.6 %), and 99.4 % (95 % CI 99.3-99.5 %), respectively. The sensitivity was lower for lesions with less advanced histological grade, of smaller size, and flat-type morphology, and for those located in the proximal part of the colon.Conclusions: FDG-PET is believed to be difficult to use as a primary screening tool in population-based colorectal cancer screening because of its low sensitivity for advanced neoplasms. Even when it is used in opportunistic cancer screening, the limit of its sensitivity should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The sensitivity of 2-[F]fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for advanced colorectal neoplasms among healthy subjects is not yet fully understood. The present study aimed to clarify the sensitivity by analyzing large-scale data from an asymptomatic screening population. Methods: A total of 7505 asymptomatic screenees who underwent both FDG-PET and colonoscopy at our Cancer Screening Division between February 2004 and March 2013 were analyzed. FDG-PET and colonoscopy were performed on consecutive days, and each examination was interpreted in a blinded fashion. The results of the two examinations were compared for each of the divided six colonic segments, with those from colonoscopy being set as the reference. The relationships between the sensitivity of FDG-PET and clinicopathological features of advanced neoplasms were also evaluated. Results: Two hundred ninety-one advanced neoplasms, including 24 invasive cancers, were detected in 262 individuals. Thirteen advanced neoplasms (advanced adenomas) were excluded from the analysis because of the coexistence of lesions in the same colonic segment. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of FDG-PET for advanced neoplasms were 16.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 12.7-21.8 %], 99.3 % (95 % CI 99.2-99.4 %), 13.5 % (95 % CI 10.1-17.6 %), and 99.4 % (95 % CI 99.3-99.5 %), respectively. The sensitivity was lower for lesions with less advanced histological grade, of smaller size, and flat-type morphology, and for those located in the proximal part of the colon. Conclusions: FDG-PET is believed to be difficult to use as a primary screening tool in population-based colorectal cancer screening because of its low sensitivity for advanced neoplasms. Even when it is used in opportunistic cancer screening, the limit of its sensitivity should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) accompanied by cavernous transformation, transient perihilar attenuation difference (TPAD) was demonstrated in the liver in the arterial phase of dynamic CT. It changed to an isodense shadow in the late phase. In one case, the area demonstrated as TPAD was well enhanced by postarterial portal CT, and in the other case, perihilar region was also densely opacified as contrasted by the peripheral area which was enhanced slightly with postarterial portography. It suggested that the TPAD area well supplied by portal blood flow via cavernous transformation and that the peripheral area surrounding TPAD was mainly supplied by increased hepatic arterial blood compensating for reduced portal flow. When the TPAD is found in the early phase of dynamic CT scan, attention should be paid to the existence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Chronic pancreatitis was the likely cause in one patient, and in the other it was idiopathic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]